[hwood]

I came across this article from CNN and read through it with the up-most sense of it rather just being for the sake of seeing what some "scholar" had to say about Christ. It's an interesting read and the comments section underneath the article are quite worth the read; much more so than the article itself:

Update July 2 8:04 a.m. After this article posted Gunnar Samuelsson got in touch to stress that his research focuses specifically on the narratives of Jesus's execution in the four Gospels, not on the entire New Testament, so "Gospels" has been substituted for "Bible" in the headline.

There have been plenty of attacks on Christianity over the years, but few claims have been more surprising than one advanced by an obscure Swedish scholar this spring.

The Gospels do not say Jesus was crucified, Gunnar Samuelsson says. In fact, he argues, in the original Greek, the ancient texts reveal only that Jesus carried "some kind of torture or execution device" to a hill where "he was suspended" and died, says Samuelsson, who is an evangelical pastor as well as a New Testament scholar. "When we say crucifixion, we think about Mel Gibson's 'Passion.' We think about a church, nails, the crown of thorns," he says, referring to Gibson's 2004 film, "The Passion of the Christ. We are loaded with pictures of this well-defined punishment called crucifixion - and that is the problem," he says.

Samuelsson bases his claim on studying 900 years' worth of ancient texts in the original languages - Hebrew, Latin and Greek, which is the language of the New Testament. He spent three years reading for 12 hours a day, he says, and he noticed that the critical word normally translated as "crucify" doesn't necessarily mean that. "He was handed over to be 'stauroun,'" Samuelsson says of Jesus, lapsing into Biblical Greek to make his point. At the time the apostles Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were writing their Gospels, that word simply meant "suspended," the theologian argues.

"This word is used in a much wider sense than 'crucifixion,'" he says. "It refers to hanging, to suspending vines in a vineyard," or to any type of suspension. "He was required to carry his 'stauros' to Calvary, and they 'stauroun' him. That is all. He carried some kind of torture or execution device to Calvary and he was suspended and he died," Samuelsson says.

Not everyone is convinced by his research. Garry Wills, the author of "What Jesus Meant," "What Paul Meant," and "What the Gospels Meant," dismisses it as "silliness." "The verb is stauresthai from stauros, cross," Wills said.

Samuelsson wants to be very clear about what he is saying and what he is not saying. Most importantly, he says, he is not claiming Jesus was not crucified - only that the Gospels do not say he was. "I am a pastor, a conservative evangelical pastor, a Christian," he is at pains to point out. "I do believe that Jesus died the way we thought he died. He died on the cross."
But, he insists, it is tradition that tells Christians that, not the first four books of the New Testament. "I tried to read the text as it is, to read the word of God as it stands in our texts," he says - what he calls "reading on the lines, not reading between the lines."
Samuelsson says he didn't set out to undermine one of the most basic tenets of Christianity. He was working on a dissertation at the University of Gothenburg in Sweden when he noticed a problem with a major book about the history of crucifixion before Jesus. What was normally thought to be the first description of a crucifixion - by the ancient Greek historian Herodotus - wasn't a crucifixion at all, but the suspension of a corpse, Samuelsson found by reading the original Greek.

The next example in the book about crucifixion wasn't a crucifixion either, but the impaling of a hand. Samuelsson's doctoral advisor thought his student might be on to something. "He recommended I scan all the texts, from Homer up to the first century - 900 years of crucifixion texts," Samuelsson recalled, calling it "a huge amount of work." But, he says, "I love ancient texts. They just consume me." So he started reading.

He found very little evidence of crucifixion as a method of execution, though he did find corpses being suspended, people being hanged from trees, and more gruesome methods of execution such as impaling people by the belly or rectum. The same Greek word was used to refer to all the different practices, he found. That's what led him to doubt that the Gospels specify that Jesus was crucified.

At the time they were written, "there is no word in Greek, Latin, Aramaic or Hebrew that means crucifixion in the sense that we think of it," he says. It's only after the death of Jesus - and because of the death of Jesus - that the Greek word "stauroun" comes specifically to mean executing a person on the cross, he argues. He admits, of course, that the most likely reason early Christians though Jesus was crucified is that, in fact, he was. But he says his research still has significant implications for historians, linguists and the Christian faithful.

For starters, "if my observations are correct, every book on the history of Jesus will need to be rewritten," as will the standard dictionaries of Biblical Greek, he says. More profoundly, his research "ought to make Christians a bit more humble," he says.
"We fight against each other," he reflects, but "the theological stances that keep churches apart are founded on things that we find between the lines. We have put a lot of things in the Bible that weren't there in the beginning that keep us apart. We need to get down on our knees as Christians together and read the Bible."

Posted by:Richard Allen Greene - Newsdesk editor, The CNN Wire

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/0...claims/?hpt=C2

[Daruhuw]

"He spent three years reading for 12 hours a day"...

I wish I could get away with that...

But, seriously, all he's saying is that prior to Christ's crucifixion, the word "stauron" was more broad than just "cruciform hanging execution". It certainly doesn't precude it, however. It's interesting to note that after Christ, the word became more specific, referring to exactly what we think it means now. Gosh, could that be because Christ was executed exactly the way we think he did? And the Christian Tradition affected linguistics in the most logical and predictable way possible?

[somozasayre]

I think he has a point. Which is why Christianity is not a sola scriptura tradition.

[Muesrasrs]

I think he reads too much and came up with some silly hypothesis which he admits he can't corroborate. Holy Tradition tells us He was Crucified; they way we understand it with nails and blood and water and gal. I choose to believe Tradition over unsubstantiated hypothesis.

Paul

[biannaruh]

What would this "scholar" make of the fact that there exists catacomb art, the precursor of iconography,which dates from the very beginning of the Christian era, which consistently shows Christ crucified on a cross? or of the cryptic symbol of T representing the cross and the Crucifixion? Or of the most ancient form of crossing oneself, by tracing a cross on the forehead with one's thumb?

[Muesrasrs]

Probably don't find that kind of knowledge in modern liberal university libraries.

[Daruhuw]

Probably don't find that kind of knowledge in modern liberal university libraries.

Ooooh! Haff ou efer bit ur tongue tho hard ou can't type right?

[cabonuserollyo]

What would this "scholar" make of the fact that there exists catacomb art, the precursor of iconography,which dates from the very beginning of the Christian era, which consistently shows Christ crucified on a cross? or of the cryptic symbol of T representing the cross and the Crucifixion? Or of the most ancient form of crossing oneself, by tracing a cross on the forehead with one's thumb?

Excellent point.

[iroxmxinau]

A couple of things I found a bit ironic in this article:

For starters, "if my observations are correct, every book on the history of Jesus will need to be rewritten," as will the standard dictionaries of Biblical Greek, he says. More profoundly, his research "ought to make Christians a bit more humble," he says. I guess I found the juxtaposition of 'my observations if correct will mean every book ever written about Christ will need to be rewritten' with him saying that his research ought to make Christians a bit more humble' seemed a bit ironic.

Secondaly:
"We fight against each other," he reflects, but "the theological stances that keep churches apart are founded on things that we find between the lines. We have put a lot of things in the Bible that weren't there in the beginning that keep us apart. We need to get down on our knees as Christians together and read the Bible." So, by him asserting that the Bible does not state Christ was crucified which would only create uncertainty and doubt to something every Christian believes to be true, the churches would somehow grow closer?

[biannaruh]

But, seriously, all he's saying is that prior to Christ's crucifixion, the word "stauron" was more broad than just "cruciform hanging execution". It certainly doesn't precude it, however. It's interesting to note that after Christ, the word became more specific, referring to exactly what we think it means now. Gosh, could that be because Christ was executed exactly the way we think he did? And the Christian Tradition affected linguistics in the most logical and predictable way possible? Then what of the Old Testament prefigurations and prophecies of the Cross? The bronze serpent in the shape of a T? Moses stretching out his arms during which the Red Sea remained parted, allowing the Israelites to escape Pharaoh's army? Some liturgical selections from Matins of the Third Sunday of Great Lent, which also address the method by which Christ was fixed to the cross:

The godly Moses prefigured Your Cross of old, when he led Israel through the Red Sea, cutting the water with his rod, Your Cross; and he sang You a song of departure, Christ our God.

As with our hands we now embrace Your Cross, which Moses of old prefigured with his outstretched arms, the invisible Amalek we put to flight, Christ our Master, through whom we shall be saved.

What shall we offer You, O Christ? For You have given us Your Precious Cross to venerate, on which Your all-holy Blood was poured out, and to which Your flesh was fixed by nails. As with love we kiss it we give You thanks.

The wood which the Prophet of lamentation saw cast into Your bread, — your Cross, compassionate Lord — we greet and we sing in praise of Your bonds and tomb, of the lance and nails.

Jonah in the belly of the whale foreshadowed by his outstretched hands the figure of the divine Cross; and he leapt out from the monster, saved by Your power, O Word.

Today, you peoples, as we dance and sing to the harp, let us greatly rejoice at the veneration of the Cross, glorifying Christ who was nailed upon it, the God of our fathers, alone blessed and greatly glorified.

He who delivered the Youths from the flames took flesh and came upon the earth. Nailed to the Cross, He granted us salvation, the God of our fathers, alone blessed and greatly glorified.

Of old Jacob prefigured Your Cross, O Christ, when he venerated the top of Joseph’s holy staff, foreseeing this dread sceptre of Your Kingdom, which now we worship in faith to the ages.

Daniel, great among the prophets, was once cast into the lions’ den; but, stretching out his hands in the form of the Cross, unharmed he was saved from being devoured by them, as he blessed Christ our God to the ages.

And, a couple from the feast of September 14:

Prefiguring Your Cross, O Christ, in giving his blessing to his grandsons, the Patriarch Jacob crossed his hands over their heads. And raising it aloft today, O Saviour, we cry out: Grant victory to all Orthodox Christians over their adversaries, as You gave the victory to Constantine.

Of old, Joshua, the son of Nun, mystically prefigured the image of the Cross when he stretched forth his arms in the form of the Cross, O my Saviour; and the sun stood still until he had cast down all the enemy opposed to You, O God. And now You have raised with You the whole world, which saw You set upon the Cross, destroying the might of death.

From memory, other liturgical sources such as the Great Canon of St Andrew of Crete and the Holy Week services similarly link OT scripture with the form of the cross, and the manner in which Christ was fixed to the cross. The OT material alone is proof enough that Christ could not have been impaled, nor have been fixed to a pole (as the Jehovah's Witnesses believe), or on an implement or object which did not have a vertical component intersected by a horizontal component, on which His arms were extended.

[popsicesHoupe]

I find the contrast between the article title and the contents interesting.

Jesus not "crucified" says scholar

Most importantly, he says, he is not claiming Jesus was not crucified - only that the Gospels do not say he was. "I am a pastor, a conservative evangelical pastor, a Christian," he is at pains to point out. "I do believe that Jesus died the way we thought he died. He died on the cross."
But, he insists, it is tradition that tells Christians that, not the first four books of the New Testament.

So, what the title claims the scholar is saying, is exactly what he stresses in the article that he is not saying. Classic.

Anyway, I like it - an evangelical scholar is admitting that a truth of our faith is derived from tradition rather than Scripture alone, and despite that he still believes it's true. Hey, it's a good start...

In Christ,
Michael

[Muesrasrs]

I was just reading the Orthodixie blogspot by Fr. Joseph Huneycutt for Sunday June 27,2010 . In the comments section, one poster said this

I was just thinking...if our Lord died on a "stake" as the JW's have it, I wonder what the priest's blessing would look like in that case? Maybe he'd just shoot us the bird? Too funny

[Olympicdreams]

Well the man has to make a name for himself, that's how it seems to me most scientists, scholars work by disproving a previous conception or teaching etc.

[MP+4]

I'm very interested to know what constitutes scholarship nowadays. Of course most theological schools whether orthodox or not are quite lacking. Now myself, as a short order cook, I will like to share some real scholarship with this scholar. First off how is it that the gospel story of doubting Thomas is ovberlooked? Thomas specifically mentions nails in the plural as the instruments which affixed his hands to the cross. Obviously the story dates to the first century, isnt that ancient enough.

Secondly how is it that this scholar claims that the gospel only mentions that Christ carried a stauron, when scholars already know that when prisoners carried a stauro they actually were carrying the crossbeam! To carry the actual upright pole would mean Christ (and later the man from Cyrene) actually carried a 12-15 foot long pole that weighed hundreds of pounds. Unless Christ was on steroids rather than a bloody mess perhaps he would have been able to pull it off. Even a person who lays down the wooden beams for train tracks can conclude that this scholar is way offbase.

This scholar who "reads alot", should instead put down his books and go to the patriarchal museum in Jerusalem where on display is an unearthed 1st century nail going thru a wristbone, belonging to an unlucky victim of crucifixion.

[Muesrasrs]

All good points Kosta,

However, it is not the doubting of Thomas. It is the believing of Thomas we commemorate. The doubting side cam about after the reformation.

[Matajic]

Actually, Paul, we do commemorate the 'good disbelief' of St Thomas - which is found in the liturgical texts of the Sunday.

[Muesrasrs]

My bad,

I'm a glass is half full kinda guy.

[cabonuserollyo]

Sounds like one would have to read his work to see what he really thinks. I googled his name and can see part of the problem is how the Internet newspapers presented his findings. Also, in ancient history classes, I learned that crucifixion was invented by the Phoenicians and picked up by the Romans. Would this scholar argue that many others were not crucified, but only placed on torturing devices? Would he argue that the thieves on each side of Jesus were not crucified, but only placed on torturing devices? Hard to make sense out of this.

[Muesrasrs]

Hard to make sense out of this.

[my reply removed]

I was just reading the comments at the bottom of the article. First I was angry, now I am sad beyond words. crying actually. So many people out there that hate God.

Paul

[iroxmxinau]

It is sad, Paul. I spend most of my time on the internet trying to defend our faith against those who deny Him on various sites. It is good to come back home to this site and be refreshed by the words and post of fellow brothers and sisters in Christ. This website of Father Irenaeus is a blessing. My thanks to him and all the other fellow posters here who keep me spiritually grounded and strengthen me by their wisdom.