Jon Darby
who's jesus
The Lie
Calling Jesus a legend is one thing, but Christians will certainly bristle at the claim that Jesus was a liar; however, do not all legends have a lie at their core? Thus, while it is certainly not being claimed that Jesus was a pathological liar, much of the crucifixion and resurrection fable would have derived from a lie.
Jesus was tried for blasphemy and sentenced by the Jewish courts.[53] Yet his punishment—crucifixion—was strictly a Roman method of execution and was imposed strictly for crimes against the Roman empire. Since the Roman government would not have involved themselves in any way in the theological disputes of the Jews, it would not follow that the gospel accounts are correct.
This elicits the response from Christians that the Jews suckered the Romans with the claim that they couldn’t put anyone to death.[54] Allegedly, their intention in this was for Jesus to be subjected to the far more heinous death at the hands of the Romans. However, we know that claim of the Jews was patently false—they used stoning as their preferred method of execution—and any Roman authority who knew anything about the local Jewish culture would have known this as well. Today, we can be certain that our military knows the local customs and culture of any country to which they deploy. Similarly, Rome would not have been ignorant of a culture over which it ruled. Thus, it does not seem reasonable that the Romans would have succumbed to this ploy.
Another rebuttal from Christians lies in the fact that Rome had, around this time, deemed itself the only governing body with the authority to put people to death. Hence, the claim is that the Jews would have had to submit to Rome’s authority had they wanted to pursue Jesus’ death. Yet, even if we are to assume that this practice was in effect prior to the crucifixion, it is entirely at odds with other biblical accounts. During Jesus’ own ministry, he intercedes for a woman who is about to be stoned for the offense of adultery.[55] Furthermore, there is also the account of Stephen being stoned for blasphemy after Jesus’ death.[56] The Jews had obviously not relinquished their Levitical duties.
Then there is the matter of Jesus being taken before Pontius Pilate, the prefect of Judea. Jesus would have been seen as nothing more than a common criminal facing trial, yet he was supposedly taken before the highest Roman official in the area for judgment. This would be akin to a state governor personally conducting the trial for someone accused of shoplifting. Simply stated, it wouldn’t happen.
If all four gospel accounts are considered, there are serious discrepancies in the procedure during Jesus’ trials. Matthew cites one trial before Ciaphas,[57] a sentencing hearing on the following morning,[58] and then a trial before Pilate,[59] and Mark records the same.[60] Luke refers to a separate trial before the Jewish council which took place that morning,[61] as well as two trials before Pilate,[62] and one before Herod.[63] John depicts the trials before Ciaphas[64] and Pilate[65] adding to these an initial trial before Annas.[66] Merging all these accounts, it would seem that Jesus went through a total of six trials. Making this more interesting, of course, is the fact that in the first three trials, the Jewish authorities found Jesus guilty but were ostensibly incapable of imposing punishment. In the latter three trials, the Romans found him innocent yet supposedly sentenced Jesus to death.
Assuming the wild idea that Jesus was condemned by the Jews and crucified by the Romans, it has to be addressed that there is doubt about the use of nails to affix the condemned to the cross. To the contrary, archaeological evidence indicates that ropes were used instead, lashing the person’s hands and feet to the cross. This has been disputed due to one excavation which revealed the use of nails in a crucifixion; however, these artifacts were dated to 70 CE—some 30-35 years after Jesus’ time.[67] It must be taken into account that the later date was a time when crucifixions were rampant due to the widespread persecution of Christians. Due to the prevalence of this persecution, it is only natural that the methods of crucifixions became even more inventive and torturous during this time. Thus, while the dates are admittedly close—especially in the greater context of archaeological history—it is quite conceivable that the use of nails was a new addition to the procedure. Moreover, if this were the case, it would perfectly align with the time frame during which the gospels were written—if nails were being used around the time the gospels were written, the authors may have included this detail even if it hadn’t been a practice 40 years prior.
If nails were not actually being used at the time of Jesus’ crucifixion, it only shows error in the gospel accounts—it would not by itself give any indication that the remainder of the story was not accurate. The important part, after all, is that Jesus was crucified and resurrected. Yet, there is biblical evidence that Jesus, himself, was not the one who was crucified—an important detail indeed. Three of the gospels show Simon of Cyrene carrying the cross,[68] whereas only one shows Jesus carrying the cross.[69] This is important since—aside from the glaring contradiction—it was a major part of the crucifixion to force the condemned to carry his own crossbeam. Crucifixions were intentionally brutal, and Jesus wouldn’t have been granted reprieve from this burden. Thus, if Simon of Cyrene was really the one bearing the cross, it would follow that he would have likely been the one who was actually crucified. This is the claim of Muslims in both the Qur’an[70] and The Gospel of Barnabas; however, this detail had been proffered centuries earlier by the Alexandrian scholar Basilides (120-130 CE).[71] Thus, contrary to the claims of modern Christianity, the substitution theory has been around at least as long as the oldest New Testament text we have.
It is a common objection that, since crucifixions were public events, at least one of the witnesses would have known that Jesus was not the one being crucified. Yet, the gospels, themselves, make it clear that the witnesses were watching from a distance.[72] This, of course, would leave ample room for misidentification.[73] The next argument is that the Roman centurions—being the trained killers that they were—would never have allowed anyone to escape. However, once again consulting the gospels themselves, we see that at least one of the centurions was a believer,[74] and he just happened to be the one who verified Jesus’ death to Pilate.[75]
Playing ‘Christian’s advocate,’ let’s assume Jesus was told, “Relax! There’s no reason for you to strain yourself before we kill you. We can find someone else to carry that cumbrous crossbeam.” For the sake of argument, we’ll also assume that it was actually Jesus who was on the cross. A substantial amount of the suffering induced through a crucifixion was due to the fact that it prolonged the pain and made for an excruciatingly slow death.[76] Ultimately, death resulted from exhaustion and slow suffocation, often after a matter of days. Yet, the gospels attest that Jesus died astonishingly quickly—in only six hours![77] Additionally, a closer look reveals that Jesus “died” immediately following being offered a drink from a sponge.[78] It is said that the sponge contained vinegar, however, if this had been the case, it would have produced a revitalizing effect—vinegar, after all, was frequently used as a temporary stimulant to reanimate slaves on galleys.[79] Instead, many sources have presented the theory that the sponge contained some sort of opiate derivative, belladonna, or hashish, any of which would have rendered Jesus unconscious. In combination with his weakened state from the scourging (more on this later), this unconsciousness could certainly have closely resembled death.
While Christians will maintain that this is wild speculation, it would be further substantiated by the fact that Jesus had previously been offered a drink from the same sponge; however, after getting a taste of it, he had refused to drink.[80] There are three common interpretations of this event: 1) Tasting the sour wine mixed with gall,[81] Jesus realized he was being mocked. 2) Realizing the drink was wine, Jesus refused it so as not to break his Nazarite vow.[82] 3) Jesus realized this concoction was a sedative and refused it so that he could bear the full suffering. Yet, all three fail to explain why, once on the cross, Jesus requested a drink from the sponge.[83] If, however, Jesus knew this was a sedative, it would be perfectly plausible that he had initially declined so as to time his “death” to produce the full theatric impact.
Jesus’ “death” was discovered when the Romans came along to break his legs, but, finding that he was already dead, they forewent this act. In all actuality though, this act would not have been performed anyway because it would have been an act of mercy—once again negating the purpose of the crucifixion. The hanging position on the cross caused severe stress on the chest and constricted the lungs. The only recourse was for the person to shift his weight from his arms to his legs. This, however, would have induced great pain—particularly if nails were used, although it would have been painful either way. Hence, breaking the legs would have been a coup de grâce, preventing the condemned from relieving the pressure on his lungs and suffocating him quickly. This would have undermined the whole purpose of the crucifixion—extended suffering.
According to the Bible, though, the Romans found that Jesus was already dead and thrust a spear into his side,[84] perhaps to make absolutely certain of his demise. However, since having his side pierced was such an important messianic prophecy, it should seem strange that it is mentioned only in one of the four gospels—and the latest one at that. Rather, it would be conceivable that this was a later addition to the story to attribute as many messianic qualities to Jesus as possible.
After his death, Jesus is said to have been removed from the cross, placed in a tomb, and carefully anointed with expensive spices.[85] None of this would have been afforded to someone who had been crucified, though. Crucifixion was the most degrading punishment conceivable, in part because it denied any respectable burial—much less embalming. What was left of the body after the elements and scavengers did their damage was either thrown to the dogs[86] or unceremoniously tossed into a mass grave.
The imminence of the Sabbath is frequently used as an excuse for this urgent need for the removal of Jesus’ body—according to Jewish law, a dead body could not be left out past sunset on the eve of the Sabbath. However, it is inconceivable that the Romans would allow for the body to be removed, and it was the Romans, after all, who were carrying out the punishment. Yet, even if we are to assume that it was common practice for the Romans to acquiesce to the customs of the Jews, they could have simply waited and conducted the crucifixions as soon as the Sabbath was over so that the bodies would have had plenty of time to hang.
The usual rebuttal to this is that Jesus’ execution was expedited so that it would be carried out prior to the Passover: this was a time when all Jews were required to make the pilgrimage to Jerusalem, and the Romans would have been afraid of the political ramifications of such a public spectacle. While it is possible that they might have wanted Jesus to be crucified prior to the arrival of Jews from across the lands, this would still not explain the urgency to crucify the two thieves alongside him. There is no reason that two common criminals would need to be rushed to their death—and if there were a reason, there were alternate methods of execution that were not designed to create such a long, drawn-out death.
More importantly, since Sabbath laws prohibited traveling after sunset, the timing would have been such that the last of the pilgrims would actually have been coming into the city as this was going on. Thus, far from being concluded prior to the great influx of Jews, the crucifixion is said to have been conducted when there would have been the largest possible Jewish audience.
The following Sunday morning, a group of women was the first to learn of the resurrection.[87] Christian sources cite this, maintaining that, due to the diminished value of women as witnesses, they would not have been mentioned if there were any possibility that the story was contrived. Yet, it would seem more likely that, if the writers were hoping to maintain the credibility of an actual account, this detail—or any other compromising detail—would have been left out. Thus, it would follow that there had to have been a specific line of reasoning for such a detail to have been included: there must have been some special significance of the women being there. The prevailing theory is that the significance lay in the specific women that were there—or more appropriately, one specific woman. Many theories abound regarding a possible marriage between Jesus and Mary Magdalene, who just happens to have been in the group of women at the tomb. Moreover, although each gospel account presents a slightly different list of the women, it is Mary Magdalene who is the common thread in them all. Had Mary been Jesus’ widow, her presence at the tomb would be an understandable detail to include in the narrative.[88]
But, of course, regardless of their significance, we all know that the important thing is that the women found the tomb empty. Or did they? Amazingly, 25% of all Christian scholars “from ultra-liberals to Bible-thumping conservatives” do not believe the tomb was empty.[89] While this is definitely a minority, it is substantial that 1 out of 4 scholars does not believe this crucial part of Christian doctrine.
It seems a striking detail that all accounts agree that there were no witnesses to the actual resurrection itself; we have Jesus going to the cross, and we have Jesus a few days later. Hence, a theory to fill the gaps with the supernatural seems to be an attempt at misdirection. Even Christian author Josh McDowell admitted, “The empty tomb does not, by itself, prove the resurrection of Jesus any more than a body missing from a morgue proves that someone has been resurrected.”[90]
However, we’ll continue to play the game and ask the question: “So where was the body?” Obviously if anyone knew, Christianity wouldn’t exist as it does today, but there are a few theories: