Was Jesus Stoned To Death?

Alternative Narratives of a Human Christ: The Tree and The Cross

In the Famous Gospel Stories...

12 to 18 min read

Jesus of Nazareth is said to be the son of God who chose to take up his divine mission to save mankind by dying on the cross for all sins. For me this sounds ridiculous. The religiously obsessed and the literalist tend to believe it! Anyway, despite Jesus being a mesmeric persona, he is shrouded by countless years of mythological bollocks and religious symbolism, which may not be relevant to what really happened. 

People bullshit, exaggerate. They lie. Now, Critical Scholars and literalist evangelicals are still arguing on what parts of the New Testament are authentic or not. Doesn't that say something? Verily, verily I say unto thee, the prevailing belief among scholars is that they don't really know what is one hundred percent historical. For instance, conservative scholar Craig L. Blomberg said, 'Strictly speaking, the gospels are anonymous.' According to Bart Ehrman, ancient gospel writers chose anonymity to keep Jesus as the focus of their narratives, and I sort of agree, but would like to add that every community would have established their own verbal recollections of the Jesus years. 

The Mystery of Gospel Authorship

Gospels were all written at different times. John is attributed to an unnamed witness and is dated around 80-100 CE. Mark is considered the oldest, expert roughly guess it was written between 65-75 CE, while Matthew and Luke are believed to have been compiled around 80-100 CE. E.P. Sanders points out that early followers of Jesus owned fragments of scripture that were updated over time. After the crucifixion, the apostles didn’t produce any grand biographical literature like Harry's attempt with 'Spare' because the followers were illiterate. It's factual.

The Evolution of Christian Doctrine

The New Testament has been interpreted countless times, which has spawned numerous denominations. Calvinists, for example, believe in predestination, while Catholics emphasize faith and baptism. Unitarians, like me don't all view Jesus as the literal and only Son of God. Humanity has had its fair share of Christology, from the Viking chieftain Jesus in the poem called the Heliand, to the blue eyed right-wing American bible-belt Jesus. Theissen and Merz (1996) suggest aspects of the crucifixion were written much later, and others suspect the resurrection historically differs to how we might imagine it, here. I am pretty biased.

Historical Accuracy

Most NT text is in Old Greek, a very difficult language to master. Dr. John Dominic Crossan noted inconsistencies with Paul's letters. As well as this, the decision to include text into Christian communities led to variations in early manuscripts. For instance, Papyrus 75 (200 AD) miss passages in the later Codex Sinaiticus (300 AD). This might suggest modern additions are not true representations of how shit went down. 

Contradictions and Theological Issues

Seems I'm not alone, Carrier (2011) also cast doubt on the historical accuracy of the crucifixion narratives, saying the phenomena are absent from contemporary Roman and Jewish accounts of crucifixions, which, he added, raises doubt on the entire events write-up! But, I'm biased. 

The Bible contains notable contradictions. Genesis 32:30 suggests seeing God face-to-face, while John 1:18 claims no one has seen God. These silly pedantic details simply highlight the conflict between historical fact and developing Christian theology. Johannine literature contains Greek terminology and ideas, see the Jesus the Philosopher blog. This Hellenic Jewish far cry from the Elite Jewish Orthodoxy of historical Jerusalem! 

The Harsh Reality of History 

If you look into Rome through a historical lens, a perspective informed by sources like Britannica, John Dominic Crossan or Bart Ehrman, we see Jewish protesters did not grind down Pontius Pilate. This is important! In fact, just as much as Rome itself, this old knight of the Samnites was an oppressor, which both historical and religious sources equally illustrate.

Stick with me here, I'm going somewhere! Pilate's Jewish subjects hated him. A total bastard to say the least. He over taxed them, and showed little if any respect for their culture and laws, as well as that, he provoked riots by displaying images of the emperor across their country. It was not uncommon for him to crucify people without a trial. In fact, this man stood trial himself in Rome for cruelty! Think about that! A complete and utter sociopath who enjoyed hurting people. 

Britannica describes Pilate as eventually removing the offending images, but only after he had threatened disgruntled Jewish citizens with death after they refused to halt their protests; they showed bravery, a quality he found admirable. Be that as it is, Rome never kept Kosher rules, nor adhered to the sabbath. Rome did not respect the native laws of Briton either when it violated Boudica, the Queen of the Iceni's two daughter's. Neither did it bend the knee to Israel when it built its own pagan monument inside their Jewish Temple! These things are significantly more offensive than leaving a treacherous sect leader to desecrate on a cross! That's why I say, I do not believe the crucifixion narrative is correct. 

    "The portrayal of Jesus in the Gospels is not simply a neutral recording of what Jesus said and did. The Gospel writers shaped and interpreted Jesus' message in light of their own theological agendas..."

                                        Bart Ehrman 

A Less Known Jesus Story

Let’s get with it. Jesus would most likely have been crucified outside the temple, given the site's foul smell, and horror. It would have been festering with flies and the process of squirming decay. It might not have been easy to make-out the facial features from high up beyond inside the city walls, which realistically, lessened the unsightliness of recognising the dying. Then again, we mustn't forget that crucifixion predated Rome, it is very ancient and goes back to Assyria. Jewish celebrants arriving for the passover would have seen Jesus on his cross as just another of the crucified; he would not have been anything special or out of the blue! This was sexing up the text. 

In the gospels, we see sentiment against wealth. Jesus is described as telling potential followers to give all their money to the poor and to follow him if they want salvation. Well, er, Joseph of Arimathea, on the other hand, was a 'wealthy follower,' so, it brgs the question why was he allowed to 'follow'? Was it because he paid for Jesus' tomb? The story never explains that contradiction, it just leads on to resurrection theology. Going on historical norms, Rome would have made an example of the Jewish King by leaving his body is situ for anyone entering the city to see. Romans would have left Jesus much longer than six hours on the cross. 

A Rare Jesus Story... 

The New Testament stories are theological developments from real historical events. The contradiction and alteration of biblical text still always raise a question, but here is one of mine:

 

Could Pilate Have Historically Ordered The Jewish Authority To Punish Jesus?

This theory is not popular among most scholars or religious people who mostly support the Roman crucifixion. What is compelling is how the bible doesn't show Jesus having any beef at all with Rome! In all truth, experts say Rome had a practice of leaving complex domestic disputes such as cultural and religious law to the natives, who, in that case, were the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem. According to this religious council, Jesus called himself 'King of the Jews' a messianic blasphemy from a prophetic perspective. I featured the Pantera tradition in my 'was Jesus a cult leader?' blog, here. Tabor (2006) questions the reliability of the crucifixion in the gospels. 

People Were So Easily Upset!

Against the prevailing view of most scholars, E.P. Sanders discovered the diverse beliefs of Second Temple Judaism, including legalistic and covenantal elements. He shed new light on Paul’s communication about grace holding much broader Jewish context, he was not brand new or separate from it. The Pantera tradition, always in question, is seen as a mere polemic claiming Jesus was stoned to death on the eve of the passover, and that he was hung on a tree. 

Undeniably, this was still an ancient Jewish punishment for blasphemy, his actual charge! Why couldn't it have happened? Bart Ehrman has blogged about this alongside James Tabor! To hang, was a euphemism for Roman crucifixion, hanging on a tree was a valid Jewish post mortem exhibition on 'the cursed tree,' arbori suspendere, which encompassed and summised the entire punishment process—it dishonoured the criminal. Killed and then exhibited. Like Roman crucifixion, it was done outside the city walls. Most importantly, always before dark. Leaving the dead outside throughout the night offended their God, and they deemed it to be unlawful. 

Stoning was vindicta publica, the general public would execute the unfortunate accuse. Amongst other things, Jesus was called sorcerer, and accused of leading the people astray and religious men insisted he was aligned with the devil. After he was stoned for blasphemy, he was hung up for all to see! It aligns perfectly with historical practices. 

'... the wise king of the Jews – they killed him and did not take thought. But God took thought for them, and their land was desolated because of them'.

              Mara Bar Serapion 1st century Pagan

If Pilate could not find a crime against Rome and washed his hands of the Jesus case, he must have tasked the Sanhedrin with executing him. It follows the judicial path. It follows perfectly if we consider the speedy retreival and entombment of the body in the biblical accounts. If we acknowledge theological retrojection exists around the trial and with the mafe up Barabas character, a much valid historical story emerges, supporting experts like E.P. Sanders and Theissen. 

Around 150 CE, in his first apology to the Roman Emperor Pius, Justyn Martyr wrote that Jews accused Christians of atheism and impiety. They also insinuated Jesus himself of being the first born of Satan and a deceiver (Dodds, and Reith, 2023). Those sentiments, as well as what we see in the New Testament align with Talmudic criticisms of Jesus. 

Saint Asaph Cathedral Skeleton

It says in deuteronomy 21:22–23: A man guilty of a capital offence is put to death and you hang him on a tree, you must not leave the body on the tree overnight. Be sure to bury it that same day, because anyone who is hung on a tree is a curse of God. 

Paul shaped Christian theology by referring to this law in Galatians 3:13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree”

Acts 5:30 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus whom you murdered by hanging on a tree.

Acts 10:39 And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree. 

This is why I doubt the crucifixion narrative. You should too. 

 

References

Blomberg, Craig L. "The Historical Reliability of the Gospels." IVP Academic, 2007.

Codex Sinaiticus. British Library, 300 AD

Editors of Encyclopedia Briticannica. "Pontius Pilate" Britannica 1st Jun 2024

Ehrman, Bart D. "How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee." HarperOne, 2014.

Dodds, M, and Reith, G "First And Second Apologies of Justyn Martyr" Dalcassian, 2023.

Sanders, E.P. "The Historical Figure of Jesus." Penguin Books, 1993.

Crossan, John Dominic. Lecture on "Paul and the Creation of Christian Theology."

Papyrus 75. Bodmer Library, 200 AD. 

Tabor, James D. (2006). The Jesus Dynasty: The Hidden History of Jesus, His Royal Family, and the Birth of Christianity. HarperCollins. 

Theissen, Gerd, and Annette Merz. (1996). The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide. Fortress Press.