DEBUNKING THE MUSLIM RED HERRING OF AN OPEN TOMB TO SUPPORT THE “SWOON THEORY” EXPLANATION FOR THE RESURRECTION
On another thread the Muslim Akinola Ade said: “Jesus was placed in an open chamber, if he was buried underground in a six feet like today, he’ll surely die, but there’s no assurance he died right from the cross, so there’s possiblity he survived and recovered not #resurrection.”
To which I responded:
“Akinola Ade do you know that Jesus body was wrapped in burial cloth by Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus? That action alone is enough to suffocate a healthy fully alive person to death! Your desperation is frankly shocking and, if it wasn’t such a serious matter, your objections are frankly laughable.
Check out this source that, while it’s main purpose is to establish that the Shroud of Turin is not authentic, serves to illustrate my point:
□ THE MATERIAL AND METHOD OF WRAPPING THE BODY
“Combining the accounts of the historical record of the New Testament teaches us that several pieces of cloth were used to wrap the body of Christ and they were in the form of “strips,” and “wrappings,” or “linen bandages” SUCH AS WERE USED IN THE PREPARATION OF MUMMIES.
Note the word “wrappings” is plural in the following passage:
John 19:39-42 “And Nicodemus came also, who had first come to Him by night; bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about a hundred pounds weight. [40] And so they took the body of Jesus, and bound it in linen wrappings with the spices, as is the burial custom of the Jews. [41] Now in the place where He was crucified there was a garden; and in the garden a new tomb, in which no one had yet been laid. [42] Therefore on account of the Jewish day of preparation, because the tomb was nearby, they laid Jesus there.”
“Linen wrapping” is the Greek word sidon meaning fine linen cloth used for swathing dead bodies or as a single garment or wrap as in the passage here:
Mark 14:51-52 “And a certain young man was following Him, wearing nothing but a linen sheet over his naked body; and they seized him. [52] But he left the linen sheet behind, and escaped naked.”
“Linen wrappings” is the Greek word othoniois (plural of othonion) meaning “a piece of fine linen, a linen cloth.”
John 19:39-42 “And Nicodemus came also, who had first come to Him by night; bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about a hundred pounds weight. [40] And so they took the body of Jesus, and bound it in linen wrappings with the spices, as is the burial custom of the Jews. [41] Now in the place where He was crucified there was a garden; and in the garden a new tomb, in which no one had yet been laid. [42] Therefore on account of the Jewish day of preparation, because the tomb was nearby, they laid Jesus there.”
Matthew and Luke use the Greek word entulisso meaning “to wrap up,” or “to fold,” or “roll or coil about.”
Matthew 27:59 “And Joseph took the body and wrapped it in a clean linen cloth”
Luke 23:53 “And he took it down and wrapped it in a linen cloth, and laid Him in a tomb cut into the rock, where no one had ever lain.”
Mark uses the Greek word eneileo meaning “to roll in,” or “wind in.”
Mark 15:46 “And Joseph bought a linen cloth, took Him down, wrapped Him in the linen cloth, and laid Him in a tomb which had been hewn out in the rock; and he rolled a stone against the entrance of the tomb.”
John uses the Greek word deo meaning “to bind,” or “tie with the results of imprisonment.”
John 19:40 “And so they took the body of Jesus, and bound it in linen wrappings with the spices, as is the burial custom of the Jews.”
The Gospel accounts are all in agreement that the body was wrapped or enfolded. It is important to compare these accounts with John 11:42-44.
John 11:42-44 “And I knew that Thou hearest Me always; but because of the people standing around I said it, that they may believe that Thou didst send Me.” [43] And when He had said these things, He cried out with a loud voice, “Lazarus, come forth.” [44] He who had died came forth, bound hand and foot with wrappings; and his face was wrapped around with a cloth. Jesus said to them, “Unbind him, and let him go.”
This was the Jewish custom. Even though when Christ was buried they had to hurry because of time, Joseph along with Nicodemus (and probably some servants since Joseph was a rich man) would have followed the Jewish custom of washing the body and wrapping it in mummy-like fashion with the spices between the folds of the wrappings.
Edersheim, the great biblical scholar and historian, wrote in his monumental work, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah:
It seems as if the `clean linen cloth’ in which the Body had been wrapped, was now torn into `cloths’ or swathes, into which the Body, limb by limb, was now `bound,’ no doubt, between layers of myrrh and aloes, the Head being wrapped in a napkin (Vol. 2, p. 618).
In a footnote to the above statement Edersheim further explained:
The Synoptists record, that the Body of Jesus was `wrapped’ in a `linen cloth’; St. John tells us that it was `bound’ with the aloes and myrrh of Nicodemus into `swathes’ or `cloths,’ even as they were found afterwards in the empty tomb, and by their side `the napkin,’ or soudarion, for the head. I have tried to combine the account of the Synoptists and that of St John into a continuous narrative (p. 618).
It is evident that the Gospel writers, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, give us the general statement of the burial. But John (who with Peter went to the empty tomb and saw the results) gives us the details of what was done with the linen cloth.
The evidence of Scripture makes it clear that Jesus was wrapped in cloth when taken down from the cross. That cloth was torn into strips, and then Jesus was bound with these linen strips, but He was not wrapped with a single piece of cloth like the Shroud.
“The words regarding the cloth clearly indicate it. The verbs used warrant it, and the specific choice of words makes it inescapable” (Answers to Tough Questions, McDowell and Stewart, p. 166).
The biblical authors of the Gospel accounts of the burial of the Lord never used two Greek words, kalutto (1 Kings 19:13) and periballo (Gen. 38:14). These words were used of garments such as the Shroud. Their failure to use these words is very significant and provide further evidence against the Shroud.”
Source: bible.org/article/shroud-turin-and-resurrection-christ
Please explain how a flogged and crucified body that has suffered massive blood loss, wrapped in burial cloth, as described above, survives for 3 days in a tomb and then miraculously revives and unwraps itself and still has the strength to remove the stone? I will wait.”
CONCLUSIONS
From the above it is plainly obvious that being placed in an “open tomb” rather than buried 6 feet underground, is a non point and a red herring. Because wrapping in burial cloth both immobilises as well as asphyxiates anyone with life left in them, such that the tomb and its dimensions becomes an immaterial moot point.
By this little publicised fact alone, (see how little emphasis is made of it in the following analysis) therefore we can easily dismiss another Muslim theory to explain away the resurrection.
□ POSTSCRIPT
~ The Apparent Death (or Swoon) Theory ~
This theory, which emerged in the late 1700s and evolved through various liberal German theologians, posits that Jesus did not die on the cross, but only appeared to die. A modern version of this theory was popularized in The Passover Plot, a 1960s book by Hugh Schonfield.
▪︎ Details of the Theory
This theory states that Jesus merely fainted on the cross, from pain, shock, and loss of blood. He was removed from the cross, alive but unconscious, and placed in the tomb belonging to Joseph of Arimathea, a member of the Jewish leadership. Jesus supposedly revived at some point, in part because of the coolness of the tomb. Despite not having access to desperately needed medical care and nourishment, Jesus then supposedly managed to unwrap His dressings by Himself and then, in the total darkness of the tomb, locate and roll away the mammoth stone that sealed the tomb entrance. And then, still unnoticed by the guards, Jesus supposedly walked a significant distance, on feet punctured by the cross nails, to rejoin His disciples and declare Himself the risen Lord.
▪︎ Response
Serious scholars don’t support this theory because it fails to account for the known facts. Evidence, both historical and medical, argues against the possibility of survival. We have at least ten reasons to be confident that Jesus did, in fact, die on the cross:
The nature of His injuries. He was brutally whipped, beaten, and crowned with deep thorns, all of which resulted in enormous blood loss and tissue damage. He collapsed while carrying His cross beam (approximate weight to be believed around 100 pounds) to the crucifixion site. The nature of crucifixion virtually guarantees death from asphyxiation. In an attempt to bolster their view, skeptics cite the historian Josephus, who describes an extremely rare case in which one person survived crucifixion, overlooking the fact that his account describes three crucifixion victims who were alive when taken down, but two of which died shortly thereafter, despite receiving excellent Roman medical care. The piercing of Jesus’ side, from which came “blood and water” (John 19:34), indicating serum separated from clotted blood, gives medical evidence that Jesus had already died. Jesus said He was in the act of dying while on the cross: “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit” (Luke 23:46). The Roman soldiers, well trained executioners, were charged with making sure He was dead before taken off the cross. When they went to break Jesus’ legs, to hasten His death, they found Him already dead. Pilate summoned the centurion to make sure Jesus was, indeed, dead before surrendering the body to Joseph for burial. Jesus’ body was wrapped in about a hundred pounds of cloth and spices, and placed in a tomb that was sealed with a massive stone. From inside the tomb, Jesus would have had no way to leverage the stone to roll it away, let alone push it back enough to slip past it. Medical experts who have studied the circumstances surrounding the end of Jesus’ life have concluded that He did actually die on the cross, most likely from a combination of factors: hypovolemic shock, exhaustion asphyxia, and even acute heart failure. Non-Christian historians from the 1st and 2nd centuries, such as Tacitus and Josephus, recorded Jesus’s death in their writings.The earliest Christian writers after the time of Christ, such as Polycarp and Ignatius, verify that Jesus died on the cross.
In his article, A Lawyer Examines The Swoon Theory, Texas attorney Joseph “Rick” Reinckens satirically unpacks this theory. Just a snippet:
“Jesus has been whipped, beaten and stabbed, is hemorrhaging, and hasn’t had any food or drink for at least three days. Does He just push the stone open enough to squeeze through? No, He pushes the stone door COMPLETELY out of the way!!!”
The theory asserts that Jesus got past the guards undetected — and then somehow traveled seven miles to Emmaus, to rejoin His disciples. Again, let’s look at Jesus’ physical condition, to decide if this sounds feasible:
Jesus would have had nothing to eat or drink for more than two days, as it has been over 48 hours since the Passover meal. Jesus would have been severely dehydrated from losing massive amount of blood and fluids. Jesus’ entire body would have been a pulpy mess, because of the severe beatings and scourging by the Roman guards. The gaping wound in His side, from being pierced by the Roman guard’s sword, would have likely perforated a lung and/or Jesus’ heart. Jesus crumpled under the weight of the crossbeam as He made His way to the crucifixion site. Yet now He manages to roll aside a tomb stone that scholars estimate weighed more than 400 pounds?
If Jesus had managed to get Himself to His disciples, are we to believe that they viewed Him, in His near-death state, to be their triumphant, risen Lord? And consider this: if Jesus had survived the crucifixion, why would His disciples create the idea of His resurrection? Would they not have thumbed their noses at Rome more by simply stating that Rome’s best efforts at torture were no limit to Jesus, the man and Messiah from Galilee?
If it crossed your mind that Jesus could have healed Himself in the tomb — as historical records tell us that He healed so many others — ask yourself why He would do so. If He didn’t die, His own predictions about Himself were untrue. If He didn’t die, His promises to us are, as Paul states, worthless. Would any of us follow Jesus if we thought Him a liar and fake? I certainly wouldn’t.
Get Outlook for Android<aka.ms/AAb9ysg>
Category Archives: Crucifixion
Historical Proof for the Crucifixion
MORE PROOF OF THE HISTORICITY OF THE CRUCIFIXION FROM HOSTILE SOURCES: THE JEWISH TALMUD
1). INTRODUCTION
During the lifetime of Jesus, the holy temple in Jerusalem was the center of Jewish religious life. The temple was the place where animal sacrifices were carried out and worship according to the Law of Moses was followed faithfully. Hebrews 9:1-9 tells us that in the temple a veil separated the Holy of Holies—the earthly dwelling place of God’s presence—from the rest of the temple where men dwelt. This signified that man was separated from God by sin (Isaiah 59:1-2). Only the high priest was permitted to pass beyond this veil once each year (Exodus 30:10; Hebrews 9:7) to enter into God’s presence for all of Israel and make atonement for their sins (Leviticus 16).
Solomon’s temple was 30 cubits high (1 Kings 6:2), but Herod had increased the height to 40 cubits, according to the writings of Josephus, a first century Jewish historian. There is uncertainty as to the exact measurement of a cubit, but it is safe to assume that this veil was somewhere near 60 feet high. An early Jewish tradition says that the veil was about four inches thick, but the Bible does not confirm that measurement. The book of Exodus teaches that this thick veil was fashioned from blue, purple, and scarlet material and fine twisted linen.
The size and thickness of the veil make the events occurring at the moment of Jesus’ death on the cross so much more momentous. “And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit. At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom” (Matthew 27:50-51a). Mark and Luke also record the same event:
“The curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom,” (Mark 15:38)
“for the sun stopped shining. And the curtain of the temple was torn in two” (Luke 23:45).
Its impossible to overstate the significance this tearing of the temple veil. At the moment of Jesus’ death, it dramatically symbolized that His sacrifice, the shedding of His own blood, was a sufficient atonement for sins. It signified that now the way into the Holy of Holies was open for all people, for all time, both Jew and Gentile alike.
When Jesus died, the veil was torn, and God moved out of that place never again to dwell in a temple made with human hands (Acts 17:24). God was through with that temple and its religious system, and the temple and Jerusalem were left “desolate” (destroyed by the Romans) in AD 70, just as Jesus prophesied in Luke 13:35. As long as the temple stood, it signified the continuation of the Old Covenant. Hebrews 9:8-9 refers to the age that was passing away as the new covenant was being established. Those 40 years mark the transition from Old Covenant to the New, hence how the writer of Hebrews records it: “By saying, a new covenant, He has declared that the first is old. And what is old and aging is about to disappear.” (Hebrews 8:13 HCSB)
In a sense, the veil was symbolic of Christ Himself as the only way to the Father (John 14:6). This is indicated by the fact that the high priest had to enter the Holy of Holies through the veil. Now Christ is our superior High Priest, and as believers in His finished work, we partake of His better priesthood. We can now enter the Holy of Holies through Him. Hebrews 10:19-20 says, “we have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the blood of Jesus by a new and living way opened for us through the curtain, that is, his body.” Here we see the image of Jesus’ flesh being torn for us just as He was tearing the veil for us.
The veil being torn from top to bottom is a fact of history. The profound significance of this event is explained in glorious detail in Hebrews. The things of the temple were shadows of things to come, and they all ultimately point us to Jesus Christ. He was the veil to the Holy of Holies, and through His death the faithful now have free access to God.
The veil in the temple was a constant reminder that sin renders humanity unfit for the presence of God. The fact that the sin offering was offered annually and countless other sacrifices repeated daily showed graphically that sin could not truly be atoned for or erased by mere animal sacrifices. Jesus Christ, through His death, has removed the barriers between God and man, and now we may approach Him with confidence and boldness (Hebrews 4:14-16).
Now a question arises from this marvelous and profound miraculous event. It’s a question that seems to have attracted little attention. Was the tearing of the temple veil a one off event or was it followed by other confirmatory signs? What if we found evidence from extra-Biblical sources, even hostile sources, that other unexplained miraculous events were taking place at the temple on an on going basis during those 40 years before its destruction?
The Jewish Talmud indeed provides several startling examples that affirm the ending of sacrifices. They are the focus of this Post.
2). THE UNEXPLAINED PHENOMENA
In the Tamud, there is recorded four unexplained phenomena.
Probably the best known is the Talmud recording that in 30 AD (the year Christ was crucified, the red fabric in the Temple stopped turning white on Yom Kippur which signaled that God accepted Israel’s sacrifice.(Rosh Hashanah 31b and 32a). The crucifixion had done away with animal sacrifices. But there were more inexplicable events.
In the centuries following the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem (70 CE), the Jewish people began writing two versions of Jewish thought, religious history and commentary. One was written in Palestine and became known as the Jerusalem Talmud. The other was written in Babylon and was known as the Babylonian Talmud.
We read in the Jerusalem Talmud:
“Forty years before the destruction of the Temple, the western light went out, the crimson thread remained crimson, and the lot for the Lord always came up in the left hand. They would close the gates of the Temple by night and get up in the morning and find them wide open” (Jacob Neusner, The Yerushalmi, p.156-157). [the Temple was destroyed in 70 CE]
A similar passage in the Babylonian Talmud states:
“Our rabbis taught: During the last forty years before the destruction of the Temple the lot [‘For the Lord’] did not come up in the right hand; nor did the crimson-colored strap become white; nor did the western most light shine; and the doors of the Hekel [Temple] would open by themselves” (Soncino version, Yoma 39b).
What are these passages talking about? Since both Talmuds recount the same information, this indicates the knowledge of these events was accepted by the widespread Jewish community. We can accept these records as reliable fact. That they are from a hostile non Christian source makes them even more notable and compelling.
3). The Miracle of the “Lot”
The first of these miracles concerns a random choosing of the “lot” which was cast on the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur). The lot chosen determined which of two goats would be “for the Lord” and which goat would be the “Azazel” or “scapegoat.” During the two hundred years before 30 CE, when the High Priest picked one of two stones, again this selection was governed by chance, and each year the priest would select a black stone as often as a white stone. But for forty years in a row, beginning in 30 CE, the High Priest always picked the black stone! The odds against this happening are astronomical (2 to the 40th power). In other words, the chances of this occurring are 1 in approximately 5,479,548,800 or about 5.5 billion to one!
The lot for Azazel, the black stone, contrary to all the laws of chance, came up 40 times in a row from 30 to 70 AD! This was considered a dire event and signified something had fundamentally changed in this Yom Kippur ritual. This casting of lots is also accompanied by yet another miracle which is described next.
4). The Miracle of the Red Strip
The second miracle concerns the crimson strip or cloth tied to the Azazel goat. A portion of this red cloth was also removed from the goat and tied to the Temple door. Each year the red cloth on the Temple door turned white as if to signify the atonement of another Yom Kippur was acceptable to the Lord. This annual event happened until 30 CE when the cloth then remained crimson each year to the time of the Temple’s destruction. This undoubtedly caused much stir and consternation among the Jews. This traditional practice is linked to Israel confessing its sins and ceremonially placing this nation’s sin upon the Azazel goat. The sin was then removed by this goat’s death. Sin was represented by the red color of the cloth (the color of blood). But the cloth remained crimson that is, Israel’s sins were not being pardoned and “made white.”
As God told Israel through Isaiah the prophet:
”Come, let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet [crimson], they shall be white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as [white] wool” (Isaiah 1:18).
The clear indication is that the whole community had lost the Lord’s attention in relation to something that occurred in 30 CE. The yearly atonement achieved through the typical Yom Kippur observance was not being realized as expected. Atonement apparently was to be gained in some other way. Who or what would provide the atonement for another year?
Concerning the crimson strip, though not mentioned in the Scriptures and long before 30 CE during the 40 years Simon the Righteous was High Priest, a crimson thread which was associated with his person always turned white when he entered the Temple’s innermost Holy of Holies. The people noticed this. Also, they noted that “the lot of the LORD” (the white lot) came up for 40 straight years during Simon’s priesthood. They noticed that the “lot” picked by the priests after Simon would sometimes be black, and sometimes white, and that the crimson thread would sometimes turn white, and sometimes not. The Jews came to believe that if the crimson thread turned white, that God approved of the Day of Atonement rituals and that Israel could be assured that God forgave their sins. But after 30 CE, the crimson thread never turned white again for 40 years, until the destruction of the Temple and the cessation of all Temple rituals!
What did the Jewish nation do in 30 CE to merit such a change at Yom Kippur? By the Gospel accounts, on April 5, 30 CE (i.e., on the 14th of Nisan, the day of the Passover sacrifice) the Messiah, Yeshua, was cut off from Israel, Himself put to death as a sacrifice for sin. To this event there is a transference of the atonement now no longer achieved through the two goats as offered at Yom Kippur. Like an innocent Passover lamb, the Messiah was put to death though no fault was found in Him! But unlike Temple sacrifices or the Yom Kippur events (as detailed above) where sin is only covered over for a time, the Messianic sacrifice comes with the promise of forgiveness of sins through grace given by God to those who accept a personal relationship with Messiah for all time! This is essentially a one time event for each person’s lifetime and not a continual series of annual observances and animal sacrifices. The mechanism providing forgiveness of sin changed in 30 CE. These signs are indubitably a confirmation of this fact.
5). The Miracle of the Temple Doors
The next miracle, which the Jewish authorities acknowledged, was that the Temple doors swung open every night of their own accord. This too occurred for forty years, beginning in 30 CE. The leading Jewish authority of that time, Yohanan ben Zakkai, declared that this was a sign of impending doom, that the Temple itself would be destroyed.
The Jerusalem Talmud states:
“Said Rabban Yohanan Ben Zakkai to the Temple, ‘O Temple, why do you frighten us? We know that you will end up destroyed. For it has been said, ‘Open your doors, O Lebanon, that the fire may devour your cedars’ ” (Zechariah 11:1)’ (Sota 6:3).
Yohanan Ben Zakkai was the leader of the Jewish community during the time following the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE, when the Jewish government was transferred to Jamnia, some thirty miles west of Jerusalem.
But apart from a sign of impending doom for the temple itself, might the doors have opened to also signify that all may now enter the Temple, even to its innermost holy sections? Just as the tearing of the veil had removed a barrier, now the ever open doors, were another sign that access to God’s grace was freely available. The evidence supported by the miracles described above suggests the Lord’s presence had departed from the Temple. This was no longer just a place for High Priests alone, but the doors swung open for all to enter the Lord’s house of worship.
6). The Miracle of the Temple Menorah
The fourth miracle was that the most important lamp of the seven candle-stick Menorah in the Temple went out, and would not shine. Every night for 40 years (over 12,500 nights in a row) the main lamp of the Temple lampstand (menorah) went out of its own accord no matter what attempts and precautions the priests took to safeguard against this event!
Earnest Martin states:
“In fact, we are told in the Talmud that at dusk the lamps that were unlit in the daytime (the middle four lamps remained unlit, while the two eastern lamps normally stayed lit during the day) were to be re-lit from the flames of the western lamp (which was a lamp that was supposed to stay lit all the time it was like the ‘eternal’ flame that we see today in some national monuments)…
“This ‘western lamp’ was to be kept lit at all times. For that reason, the priests kept extra reservoirs of olive oil and other implements in ready supply to make sure that the ‘western lamp’ (under all circumstances) would stay lit. But what happened in the forty years from the very year Messiah said the physical Temple would be destroyed? Every night for forty years the western lamp went out, and this in spite of the priests each evening preparing in a special way the western lamp so that it would remain constantly burning all night!” (The Significance of the Year CE 30, Ernest Martin, Research Update, April 1994, p.4).
Again, the odds against the lamp continually going out are astronomical. Something out of the ordinary was going on. The “light” of the Menorah representing contact with God, His Spirit, and His Presence was now removed. This special demonstration occurred starting with the crucifixion of the Messiah!
It should be clear to any reasonable mind that there is no natural way to explain all these four signs connected with the year 30 CE. The only possible explanation has to be supernatural. More than that that it was related to the crucifixion.
After 30 CE, and the death of the Messiah, great trouble and awesome trials began to come upon the Jewish nation. Yeshua Himself foretold it. As He was led away to be crucified, Yeshua warned the women of Jerusalem:
But Jesus, turning to them, said, “Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for Me, but weep for yourselves and for your children. For indeed the days are coming in which they will say, ‘Blessed are the barren, wombs that never bore, and breasts which never nursed!’ Then they will begin `to say to the mountains, “Fall on us!” and to the hills, “Cover us!” ‘ “For if they do these things in the green wood, what will be done in the dry?” (Luke 23:28-31).
7). CONCLUSIONS
Shortly before His death Jesus had said something to the scribes, Pharisees, and people of Jerusalem which must have been earth-shattering to His audience at the time:
“See! Your house is left to you desolate” (Matthew 23:38).
This mirrors what happened in the days of Jeremiah: “I have forsaken My house, I have left My heritage; I have given the dearly beloved of My soul into the hands of her enemies” (Jeremiah 12:7).
Notice that Jesus didn’t say the temple belonged to His Father, but instead He referred to it as “your” house (speaking to the people of Jerusalem). God was about to forsake the temple. The era and system for animal sacrifices was coming to a close. Worship in spirit and in truth was no longer confined to a particular place or building. (John 4:23-4) All the signs covered in this post affirm that paradigm shift.
When someone put to Rabbi Tovia Singer why the crimson thread remained crimson, he gave a scornful response. He tried unconvincingly to turn it around and suggest this had happened as a judgment upon the Jews for forsaking their time honoured sacrificial system for the heresy of Christ’s sacrificial death. He also made reference as will Muslims to the predicted rebuilding of the temple and restoration of sacrifices, little understanding that this will be to fulfil prophecy for memorial purposes only. You can read his rebuttal to part of the evidence here:
outreachjudaism.org/yomkippur/
When we take an objective look at the events of 30 CE, and these attendant signs recorded in the Talmud (which is a source hostile to Christian theology), who can doubt that this once and for all time sacrifice ended the temple sacrificial system, that AD 30 was indeed the year of the crucifixion and resurrection of the true Messiah God sent to Israel? Who can deny that He is the one and only true Messiah? Who else has fulfilled all the prophecies of the Old Testament — including the amazing prophecy of Daniel 9 and the ”70 weeks,” coming at the very year predicted for the Messiah to appear?
Praise God that historical sources prove the events faithfully recorded in the Gospel accounts. And at the same time damn Islam’s false narrative (if two sentences can be described as an alternative narrative).
Jesus Himself clearly predicted his death
Jesus Himself clearly predicted that He would die and rise again the third day.
(Matthew 12:40; Matt 16:21; Matt 17:23)
4 Historical Facts that Prove Jesus Really Did Rise from the Dead
Jesus death by crucifixion is an undisputed fact
Jesus death by crucifixion is an undisputed fact.
This is attested by Christian and Non Christian sources.
Multiple Attestation
Firstly, Jesus’ death by crucifixion is multiply attested, by a fair number of ancient sources, both Christian and non-Christian alike.
In regards to Christian sources which mention his death, I list from the first century AD all four canonical Gospels, Acts, Paul’s Epistles, all within the Bible; then Ignatius’ Epistles (dating around 110 AD, for example, his Letter to the Symrnaeans, chapters 1 and 2). Many, if not all, of these sources are independent.
Here’s one example I focused on recently in preaching through Mark (usually dated as the earliest Gospel). The narrative in Mark 15:44-45 makes it clear Jesus really was dead. The history books record that men who were crucified sometimes took two or three days to die. A more rapid death was unusual. So in this case, the governor Pilate gets the expert executioner to confirm the death certificate! The observation that Roman centurions were professional soldiers and didn’t make mistakes is well taken. So satisfied, Pilate permitted the body of Jesus to be buried.
By the way, there was a very low probability of surviving execution by crucifixion. Apparently there is only one extant account (in Josephus) of one person surviving crucifixion out of the hundreds reported in ancient literature. (And that case was only when excellent medical care was immediately provided by the Romans, and even so, only one out of three who were so rescued actually survived!)
Criterion of Embarrassment
Mark also stresses that it was women who witnessed the events: death, burial and empty tomb. And each time, verbs of seeing are emphasized. And each time, some of them are named. Mark 15:40 says that when Jesus has just died, at least three women are there. Two of these same women witnessed the burial (Mark 15:47). And in Mark 16:1, all three women are again mentioned as arriving back at the tomb on resurrection Sunday. The appeal to these women’s role as eyewitnesses couldn’t be clearer.
And notice how Mark reports only two of the three are at the burial? Presumably because that’s how it was. Mark wasn’t going to exaggerate. This precision shows a real concern for accuracy.
And presumably these people are mentioned by name in the Gospels, because they were well-known in early church times for their testimony to these crucial events in the origins of Christianity. It’s an accepted method of ancient historiography: the appeal to witnesses, many of whom could be cross-examined. It would have been hard to write, if there were not real people around to back up these claims.
Now both Graeco-Roman and Jewish sources from around the Mediterranean at this time indicated that a woman’s testimony was mostly considered unreliable at law. Much as it sounds sexist to modern ears, with the prejudice of those days, women were seen as gullible. So if you were embellishing a ‘Jesus story’ later on, you wouldn’t compound the difficulty by inventing women as key witnesses!
So the obvious reason for naming women is that the embarrassing fact was true. This is the criterion of embarrassment. Ironically, the reason for the report’s lack of credibility in the 1st century is the reason for its credibility in the 21st century!
Non-Christian sources
In regards to non-Christian sources, I mention Josephus (Antiquities 18:3, writing c. 93 AD, citing Jesus’ name, the method of crucifixion, and the governor who ordered it, Pilate), Tacitus (Annals 15:44, writing c. 115 AD, mentioning execution under Pilate, but not the method), and a bit later, Lucian (b. c.125 AD in The Death of Peregrine). I could add many others later, all of which pre-date the Qu’ran by a several centuries.
In regards to reliability of Josephus, and his so-called ‘Testimonium Flavianum’, there is enormous literature debating this issue. There are three main positions. The first, a minority position among scholars, favours its entire authenticity. The second, also a minority position, treats the entire section as Christian interpolation. The third, which is by far and away the majority position among scholars suggests Josephus mentions Jesus in this text but his words were subsequently doctored. While there is debate about how much of the material is interpolation, most include the reference to Jesus’ crucifixion under Pilate, while excluding part or all reference to the resurrection.
By contrast, it is an interesting exercise to ask sceptics for any extent examples of ancient non-Christian sources to the contrary, dating in the first or second century, and insisting that Jesus did not die by Roman execution, for example, suggesting that it only looked like Jesus was crucified!
Early dating
These reports, especially those in the New Testament, are early. Paul mentions the death of Jesus no later than 55 AD in 1 Corinthians and earlier in Galatians. And he reports he preached the same message to the Corinthians when he was with them in 50-51 AD, which is within 17-21 years of the time Jesus is said to have died (depending on whether you go for 30 or 33 AD). And the oral tradition formula he reports preaching in 1 Cor 15:3ff is widely assessed by scholars who have considered the subject to have been composed very early, reflecting what was taught by the Jerusalem apostles, very likely within a few years, or maybe even months of the events being reported.
For example, atheist scholar Gerd Ludemann, in The Resurrection of Christ: A Historical Inquiry (2004), agrees that,
the discovery of pre-Pauline confessional formulations is one of the great achievements of recent New Testament scholarship. (p. 37)
Indeed Ludemann thinks the formula within 1 Corinthians 15:3ff was composed very early, within,
the first two years after the crucifixion of Jesus. (p. 31)
All this underlines my point about the earliness of the reports of the death of Jesus. This is the criterion of antiquity.
By contrast, the Qu’ran dates no earlier than 610 A.D. when Muslims indicate that the angel Gabriel first appeared and began to speak to Muhammad. And so its testimony that Jesus did not really die on the cross dates more than 5 centuries later than the earliest written claims of his crucifixion. There is a massive gap back to the events it claims to report.
The verdict of modern historians
Historians judge on how they assess the balance of probabilities. Almost all scholars who have studied the subject conclude Jesus died by crucifixion. Here are some representative samples.
John McIntyre, “The Uses of History in Theology”, Studies in World Christianity 7.1, 2001:
Even those scholars and critics who have been moved to depart from almost everything else within the historical content of Christ’s presence on earth have found it impossible to think away the factuality of the death of Christ. (p. 8)
Gerd Ludemann, The Resurrection of Christ: A Historical Inquiry, 2004:
Jesus’ death as a consequence of crucifixion is indisputable. (p. 50)
JD Crossan, who denies the authenticity of many of the saying and deeds attributed to Jesus in the canonical Gospels, says in The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant, 1999:
[there is not the] slightest doubt about the fact of Jesus’ crucifixion under Pontius Pilate. (p. 375)
He’s repeating his point from Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography, 1994:
That he was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be. (p. 145)
Geza Vermes, the late Jewish New Testament scholar, The Passion: The True Story of an Event that Changed Human History, 2006:
The passion of Jesus is part of history. (p. 9)
Bart Erhrman, renowned textual critic, but no friend of traditional Christianity, in The Historical Jesus: Lecture Transcript and Course Guidebook, 2000, says:
One of the most certain facts of history is that Jesus was crucified on orders of the Roman prefect of Judea, Pontius Pilate. (p. 162)
Roman Catholic scholar, RE Brown, The Death of the Messiah, 1994:
Most scholars accept the uniform testimony of the Gospels that Jesus died during the Judean prefecture of Pontius Pilate. (p. 1373)
It’s getting a bit tedious. I could cite many other scholars to this end.
Conclusion
I have used several standard aspects of reputable historical method (e.g. the criteria of multiple attestation, of embarrassment, of antiquity).
And the assessment that Jesus’ death by crucifixion is factual is shared by a very wide consensus of scholarship, including many of those unsympathetic to biblical Christianity. In fact, the wideness of the consensus is almost unprecedented in biblical scholarship.
I think it fair to say this manages the bias of my own horizons more than adequately. I am not so sure about others who ignore this consensus.
And so I am confident to say the Bible is absolutely correct and truthful when it says Jesus died by crucifixion and therefore (although I am sorry to put it so bluntly) the Qu’ran is wrong when it asserts Jesus did not die this way.
HIgh Day
Notice also that John 19:31 mentions that the Sabbath immediately after Jesus’ death was “a high day””not the weekly seventh-day Sabbath (from Friday evening to Saturday evening), but one of the annual Sabbaths, the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread (see Leviticus 23:6-7), which can fall on any day of the week.
In fact, two Sabbaths”first an annual Holy Day and then the regular weekly Sabbath”are mentioned in the Gospel accounts, a detail overlooked by most people. This can be proven by comparing Mark 16:1 with Luke 23:56.
Mark’s account tells us, “Now when the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices, that they might come and anoint Him” (Mark 16:1). However, Luke’s account describes how the women who followed Jesus saw how His body was laid in the tomb. “Then they returned and prepared spices and fragrant oils” for the final preparation of the body. “And they rested on the Sabbath according to the commandment” (Luke 23:56).
Mark tells us that the women bought the spices after the Sabbath, “when the Sabbath was past.” Luke, however, tells us that they prepared the spices and oils, after which “they rested on the Sabbath according to the commandment.” How could the women have bought spices after the Sabbath, yet then prepared them and rested on the same Sabbath?
That is obviously impossible”unless two Sabbaths are involved, with a day between them. Once we realise this, the two accounts become clear .Christ died near 3 p.m. and was placed in the tomb near sunset that day”a Wednesday in 31. That evening began the “high day” Sabbath, the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, which fell on Thursday that year.
The women rested on that day, then on Friday purchased and prepared the spices and oils for Jesus’ body, which could not be done on either the Holy Day or the weekly Sabbath. They then rested again on the weekly Sabbath before going to the tomb before daybreak on Sunday morning, at which time they discovered that Christ had already been resurrected.
Historical evidence for the crucifixtion 2
QUESTION: Is there historical evidence of the crucifixion?
ANSWER:
Is there historical evidence of the crucifixion? The crucifixion of Jesus Christ did not take place in obscurity. The writers of the four gospels were actual figures in history that wrote, from various perspectives, about the life, ministry, and death of Jesus Christ of Nazareth. Their writings depicted eyewitness accounts of documented happenings in history. The variety of theories as to the events following the crucifixion and to what happened to the body of Jesus, only serves to further establish the fact of this heinous death. Such well-known legends as the swoon theory, that Jesus only passed out on the cross and was later resuscitated by the cool air of the tomb, and the case of the stolen body are strewn throughout literature chronicling the events of that time. The fact is, the death of Jesus Christ was never disputed. The Jews, both those who hated him and those who would become His future followers, witnessed His death. It was a public event that took place in front of the whole world. John 12:32-33 says, “‘But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself.’ He said this to show the kind of death He was going to die.” Joseph of Arimethea, himself a notable figure of the Jews of that day, requested the body of Jesus in order to give Him an honorable burial.
As to the validity of the mode of execution, it was established that by the first century, crucifixion was the Roman method for certain non-Roman criminals. It was initially employed as a form of punishment causing extreme pain and humiliation, so much so that the word “excruciating” was created for the express purpose of describing the unfathomable horror of the individual’s suffering on a cross. Excruciating literally means, “out of the cross.” How wonderfully this fit into the plan and will of God: “If a man guilty of a capital offense is put to death and his body is hung on a tree, you must not leave his body on the tree overnight. Be sure to bury him that same day, because anyone who is hung on a tree is under God’s curse. . .” (Deuteronomy 21:22-23).
The massacre and shame that the Savior endured as one accursed was suffered for our benefit. He who never sinned suffered on our behalf, for our sins worthy of death; we were the accursed. The severity of the punishment was a stark reflection of God’s holiness and His hatred of sin. While we as humans justify ourselves and compare ourselves to others who may not be as “good” as we are, God has indicated that the slightest infraction is an affront to His holiness.
1 John 5:17 says, “All wrongdoing is sin. . .” What a terrible weight Jesus carried, the load of our sins that so disfigured Him, that even the Father turned away? Matthew 27:46 “About the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, ‘Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?’ – which means, ‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?'”
Perhaps the greatest evidence of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ is the eternal results in the lives of those who have accepted Him. Those who have believed in what happened on Golgotha have been given the right to be called sons of God, and may now cry “Abba, Father.” We can now have fellowship with the living God.
Jesus Christ was not the first or last person to be crucified. He was the only one, however, to be resurrected, and that from such a horrible death. He bore in His resurrection body, forever, the scars of His crucifixion in His hands and feet and side. We are told in God’s Word that this will ever be a witness, for as the prophet foretold, “And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son” (Zechariah 12:10).
Crucified, it’s history
Crucified, it’s history.
We have eyewitness account to the apostle John by two men named Polycarp and Papias and John knew full well who wrote the gospel and they all inform us it’s the apostles. After that,
The next reference.
Josephus:
Modern scholarship has largely acknowledged the authenticity of the second reference to Jesus in the Antiquities, found in Book 20, Chapter 9, which mentions
“the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James.”
(13] Louis Feldman (ISBN 90-04-08554-8 pages 55″57) states that the authenticity of the Josephus passage on James has been “almost universally acknowledged
A second reference.
“…And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease…..”
10th century Arabic manuscript of Josephus that was cited by historian and now A world leading scholar Schlomo Pines of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem:
“At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good, and [he] was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive. Accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders.” (10th Century Arabic Text)
The majority of scholars hold that it contains an authentic reference the execution of Jesus by Pilate, which was then subject to Christian interpolation or alteration.
The second one is Tacitus.
Tacitus and Roman historian contemporaries we learn this And this is the same guy who tells you about the fire of Rome.
1) Christians were named for their founder, Christus (from the Latin),
(2) who was put to death by the Roman procurator Pontius Pilatus (also Latin),
(3) during the reign of emperor Tiberius (14 37 A.D.).
(4) His death ended the “superstition” for a short time, (5) but it broke out again,
(6) especially in Judaea, where the teaching had its origin.
(7) His followers carried his doctrine to Rome.
(8) When the great fire destroyed a large part of the city during the reign of Nero (54 68 A.D.), the emperor placed the blame on the Christians who lived in Rome. (9) Tacitus reports that this group was hated for their abominations.
(10) These Christians were arrested after pleading guilty, (11) and many were convicted for “hatred for mankind.”
The third is:
Celsus attacked the church out of genuine love for the Roman Empire, which he felt was being undermined. Celsus chided Christians as “sectarians “.
– Contra Celsum 1.38: “there he learned certain magical powers which the Egyptians are proud to have. He returned full of pride in these powers, and gave himself the title of God”.
– Celsus’ Jewish critic]: For ye do not even allege this, that he seemed to wicked men to suffer this punishment, though not undergoing it in reality; but, on the contrary, ye acknowledge that he openly suffered.
– Celsus also says Jesus studied magic and practiced sorcery in Egypt. Celsus uses more elements from the life of Jesus against the Christians here. Celsus refers to both the miracles and some of the (misconstrued) background of Jesus in a very real, albeit negative, way.
– Celsus’ Jewish critic]: While undergoing his punishment he was seen by all, but after his resurrection only by one.
The fourth is:
Lucian. The modern day Richard Dawkins was second century Greek satirist, Lucian spoke rather derisively of Jesus and early Christians. His point was to criticize Christians for being gullible people. He relates some important facts concerning Jesus and Christians: �
“The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day ” the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account. . . .”
He writes about Jesus in The Passing of Peregrinus.
The passage above is strong evidence for Jesus’ existence for the following reasons:
* Lucian of samosata was hostile to Christianity, so he would have absolutely no reason to write anything that would benefit Christians. In the passage above, Lucian is actually mocking Christians for believing in a man who was crucified.
* The “man” who was “crucified” and “the crucified sage” in the passage is clearly Jesus, since no other person fits these descriptions.
* Lucian of Samosata not only demonstrates that Jesus existed, but he also corroborates the fact of his crucifixion. His writing demonstrates that from a very early time, it was simply assumed, and a known fact, that Jesus existed and was crucified.
Next is Phlegon
Phlegon. The same way Plutarch brings us one of the first biographies of Alexander the great by using copies of copies of copies of other men’s work and 400 years after he’s dead, Origen does the very same thing with Phlegon. Origen a Second century church-elder quotes him.
“ So Phlegon mentioned that Jesus made predictions about future.
Origen adds:�”And with regard to the eclipse in the time of Tiberius Caesar, in whose reign Jesus appears to have been crucified, and the great earthquakes which then took place, Phlegon too, I think, has written in the thirteenth or fourteenth book of his Chronicles.”
Again we have :
Mara Bar Serapion, who was writing from prison to motivate his son Serapion to emulate wise teachers of the past:
What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise King? It was just after that that their kingdom was abolished.
Again we have:
Thallus refers to Jesus’ crucifixion we can ascertain that at least an account of the crucifixion, was known in the Mediterranean region by the middle of the first century A.D. This is corroborated by Tacitus and Suetonius Long with Pliny that surely Pontius pilate crucify Jesus.
We’re just scratching the surface to the truth of Jesus was executed and crucified just like the Bible says.
His death in the Law and the Prophets. In Galatians 3:13, Paul applies Deuteronomy 21:22″23 to the death of Christ. Crucifixion allowed for the “piercing” mentioned in Zechariah 12:10 (cf. John 19:37). Crucifixion results in the shedding of blood, necessary for a sacrifice (Hebrews 9:22; cf. Leviticus 17:11). In crucifixion, the breaking of bones can be avoided (Exodus 12:46; cf. John 19:36). And the crucifixion of Christ perfectly fits the description of the anguish David faced in Psalm 22.
Crucifixition- The Witness of Non-Christian History
The Witness of Non-Christian History
However, those who were much closer to the historical situation than Mohammed (who was born in a.d. 571) reported that Jesus died by crucifixion. These witnesses include non-Christian historians who had no motive to fabricate Christ’s death. For example, the Roman historian, Tacitus (who was born in a.d 55), wrote in his Annals (15:44) an explanation of how Nero, the emperor (who died in a.d 68) blamed Christians for the great fire of Rome in order to deflect rumors that he had started the blaze. In this passage Tacitus alludes to a fact which no one disputed: Christ had been crucified under Pontius Pilate:
All human efforts . . . of the emperor, and the propitiations of the gods, did not banish the sinister belief that the conflagration was the result of an order. Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus , and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular. [4]
It was common and undisputed knowledge in the second half of the first century that Jesus Christ had been crucified. If there were any question that he had died in this way, it would have been eagerly disputed wherever Christians preached. But it wasn’t. The fact of his death by crucifixion was not questioned.
If the death of Jesus was a myth, it had to be created overnight, since within weeks Christians were preaching the saving power of Christ’s suffering and death. Even more significant, it was being preached in Jerusalemthe very city which had the greatest interest in making sure the error was stopped. As far as the Jewish leaders were concerned, this new religion was a distortion of the Jewish faith, and, in fact, was blasphemy, since Christians claimed that Jesus was himself the Son of God (Mark 14:61-64). “We have a law,” the Jewish leaders said to Pilate, “and according to that law he ought to die because he has made himself the Son of God” (John 19:7).
The fact is that Christians openly based their faith on the fact that Jesus was publicly tried, condemned, executed, and raised from the dead. They spoke this way within weeks after these events, when thousands of people who opposed this faith could have proved it wrong, if Jesus had not died. They could have gone to Pilate the governor or Herod the king or the Jewish Council or the soldiers or other witnesses of the crucifixion and gotten proof that he had not been condemned or crucified the way Christians said he was. But, in fact, no one did that. Everyone in Jerusalem knew that Jesus had been crucified, and many had watched him die. The resurrection was disputed, but not the crucifixion.
The early Christians were keenly aware that eyewitnesses were crucial in verifying their claims about the death and resurrection of Jesus. Their earliest writer, the apostle Paul, who was a contemporary of Jesus, said, ” Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures. . . . he was buried . . . he was raised on the third day . . . Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive” (1 Corinthians 15:3-6). Why did Paul say “most of whom are still alive”? Because he was not afraid to have his claims put to the test. He knew they could be verified by eyewitnesses. In other words, Christianity was spreading during the very decades when eyewitnesses could have most easily proved it false. But the basic claims stood the test. The events had happened.
Moreover why would a group of Jews (for all the first Christians were Jews by birth) fabricate the death of Christ? The Christians had nothing to gain from creating the story of a crucified Messiah. It made the spread of Christianity almost impossible from a natural viewpoint. Crucifixion was an obscene form of torture and execution reserved for despised criminals. Most people, hearing the Christian message that Jesus Christ was the divine Son of God who died by crucifixion, thought it was ludicrous. One of the earliest first-century Christian preachers said, ” We preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles [that is, non-Jews]” (1 Corinthians 1:23 ). It was not to the advantage of Christians to concoct a crucified Messiah. It made their life and mission much harder.
It was absolutely astonishing to the Roman world after the death of Jesus that Christians were willing to be tortured for faith in a convicted and crucified criminal. If this were a self-created myth, it was suicidal. In his History of Christian Missions , Stephen Neil wrote, “Christians under the Roman Empire had no legal right to existence, and were liable to the utmost stringency of the law. . . . Every Christian knew that sooner or later he might have to testify to his faith at the cost of his life.” [5] All of this because they believed that the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ was the most important event in the history of the world. The foolishness of the claim was almost insurmountable. And the Christians didn’t try to water it down.
https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/historical-evidence-for-the-resurrection
https://strangenotions.com/an-atheist-historian-examines-the-evidence-for-jesus-part-1-of-2/
https://strangenotions.com/an-atheist-historian-examines-the-evidence-for-jesus-part-2-of-2/
Crucifixion Historicity
Sandy Grant | 24 May, 2013
I have heard the claim that Jesus never died on the cross many times over the years, in person, in the press, on the web and via social media. Here is my reply.
First it’s important to understand where the question comes from. Occasionally you hear it from people claiming Jesus only ‘swooned’ and revived in the tomb and exited, thus explaining the empty tomb in a way that removes the need for resurrection. It’s not a theory generally pursued much today.
But more often these days, the claim Jesus never died on the cross is asserted strongly by Muslim conversation partners, based on this verse from the Qu’ran 4:157, which includes these words (translated into English):
And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them.
I myself have sometimes raised raised the death of Jesus by crucifixion as a test case when people say that really all religions basically teach the same things.
In this case, I am simply applying the law of non-contradiction. That is, Jesus was either crucified, as the Bible says, or he was not, as the Qu’ran says. (There is a third possibility: that both claims are wrong, for example, if he never existed, which has previously been addresed.)
How do we assess such a claim? One might simply accept the claim of a particular source of revelation and authority. That is, for other reasons, which may be better or worse, you come to trust (i.e. exercise faith) in the claims of the Bible or the Qu’ran on this matter.
However in the public arena, I proceed by making an historical argument. And historical judgments are based on the balance of probabilities, rather than certainties. Since we have no direct access to the past, that is the only way we can proceed.
On that basis, let me summarise why Jesus’ execution by crucifixion under Pontius Pilate can be considered such a secure fact of ancient history.
Multiple Attestation
Firstly, Jesus’ death by crucifixion is multiply attested, by a fair number of ancient sources, both Christian and non-Christian alike.
In regards to Christian sources which mention his death, I list from the first century AD all four canonical Gospels, Acts, Paul’s Epistles, all within the Bible; then Ignatius’ Epistles (dating around 110 AD, for example, his Letter to the Symrnaeans, chapters 1 and 2). Many, if not all, of these sources are independent.
Here’s one example I focused on recently in preaching through Mark (usually dated as the earliest Gospel). The narrative in Mark 15:44-45 makes it clear Jesus really was dead. The history books record that men who were crucified sometimes took two or three days to die. A more rapid death was unusual. So in this case, the governor Pilate gets the expert executioner to confirm the death certificate! The observation that Roman centurions were professional soldiers and didn’t make mistakes is well taken. So satisfied, Pilate permitted the body of Jesus to be buried.
By the way, there was a very low probability of surviving execution by crucifixion. Apparently there is only one extant account (in Josephus) of one person surviving crucifixion out of the hundreds reported in ancient literature. (And that case was only when excellent medical care was immediately provided by the Romans, and even so, only one out of three who were so rescued actually survived!)
Criterion of Embarrassment
Mark also stresses that it was women who witnessed the events: death, burial and empty tomb. And each time, verbs of seeing are emphasized. And each time, some of them are named. Mark 15:40 says that when Jesus has just died, at least three women are there. Two of these same women witnessed the burial (Mark 15:47). And in Mark 16:1, all three women are again mentioned as arriving back at the tomb on resurrection Sunday. The appeal to these women’s role as eyewitnesses couldn’t be clearer.
And notice how Mark reports only two of the three are at the burial? Presumably because that’s how it was. Mark wasn’t going to exaggerate. This precision shows a real concern for accuracy.
And presumably these people are mentioned by name in the Gospels, because they were well-known in early church times for their testimony to these crucial events in the origins of Christianity. It’s an accepted method of ancient historiography: the appeal to witnesses, many of whom could be cross-examined. It would have been hard to write, if there were not real people around to back up these claims.
Now both Graeco-Roman and Jewish sources from around the Mediterranean at this time indicated that a woman’s testimony was mostly considered unreliable at law. Much as it sounds sexist to modern ears, with the prejudice of those days, women were seen as gullible. So if you were embellishing a ‘Jesus story’ later on, you wouldn’t compound the difficulty by inventing women as key witnesses!
So the obvious reason for naming women is that the embarrassing fact was true. This is the criterion of embarrassment. Ironically, the reason for the report’s lack of credibility in the 1st century is the reason for its credibility in the 21st century!
Non-Christian sources
In regards to non-Christian sources, I mention Josephus (Antiquities 18:3, writing c. 93 AD, citing Jesus’ name, the method of crucifixion, and the governor who ordered it, Pilate), Tacitus (Annals 15:44, writing c. 115 AD, mentioning execution under Pilate, but not the method), and a bit later, Lucian (b. c.125 AD in The Death of Peregrine). I could add many others later, all of which pre-date the Qu’ran by a several centuries.
In regards to reliability of Josephus, and his so-called ‘Testimonium Flavianum’, there is enormous literature debating this issue. There are three main positions. The first, a minority position among scholars, favours its entire authenticity. The second, also a minority position, treats the entire section as Christian interpolation. The third, which is by far and away the majority position among scholars suggests Josephus mentions Jesus in this text but his words were subsequently doctored. While there is debate about how much of the material is interpolation, most include the reference to Jesus’ crucifixion under Pilate, while excluding part or all reference to the resurrection.
By contrast, it is an interesting exercise to ask sceptics for any extent examples of ancient non-Christian sources to the contrary, dating in the first or second century, and insisting that Jesus did not die by Roman execution, for example, suggesting that it only looked like Jesus was crucified!
Early dating
These reports, especially those in the New Testament, are early. Paul mentions the death of Jesus no later than 55 AD in 1 Corinthians and earlier in Galatians. And he reports he preached the same message to the Corinthians when he was with them in 50-51 AD, which is within 17-21 years of the time Jesus is said to have died (depending on whether you go for 30 or 33 AD). And the oral tradition formula he reports preaching in 1 Cor 15:3ff is widely assessed by scholars who have considered the subject to have been composed very early, reflecting what was taught by the Jerusalem apostles, very likely within a few years, or maybe even months of the events being reported.
For example, atheist scholar Gerd Ludemann, in The Resurrection of Christ: A Historical Inquiry (2004), agrees that,
the discovery of pre-Pauline confessional formulations is one of the great achievements of recent New Testament scholarship. (p. 37)
Indeed Ludemann thinks the formula within 1 Corinthians 15:3 was composed very early, within,
the first two years after the crucifixion of Jesus. (p. 31)
All this underlines my point about the earliness of the reports of the death of Jesus. This is the criterion of antiquity.
By contrast, the Qu’ran dates no earlier than 610 A.D. when Muslims indicate that the angel Gabriel first appeared and began to speak to Muhammad. And so its testimony that Jesus did not really die on the cross dates more than 5 centuries later than the earliest written claims of his crucifixion. There is a massive gap back to the events it claims to report.
The verdict of modern historians
Historians judge on how they assess the balance of probabilities. Almost all scholars who have studied the subject conclude Jesus died by crucifixion. Here are some representative samples.
John McIntyre, “The Uses of History in Theology”, Studies in World Christianity 7.1, 2001:
Even those scholars and critics who have been moved to depart from almost everything else within the historical content of Christ’s presence on earth have found it impossible to think away the factuality of the death of Christ. (p. 8)
Gerd Ludemann, The Resurrection of Christ: A Historical Inquiry, 2004:
Jesus’ death as a consequence of crucifixion is indisputable. (p. 50)
JD Crossan, who denies the authenticity of many of the saying and deeds attributed to Jesus in the canonical Gospels, says in The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant, 1999:
[there is not the] slightest doubt about the fact of Jesus’ crucifixion under Pontius Pilate. (p. 375)
He’s repeating his point from Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography, 1994:
That he was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be. (p. 145)
Geza Vermes, the late Jewish New Testament scholar, The Passion: The True Story of an Event that Changed Human History, 2006:
The passion of Jesus is part of history. (p. 9)
Bart Erhrman, renowned textual critic, but no friend of traditional Christianity, in The Historical Jesus: Lecture Transcript and Course Guidebook, 2000, says:
One of the most certain facts of history is that Jesus was crucified on orders of the Roman prefect of Judea, Pontius Pilate. (p. 162)
Roman Catholic scholar, RE Brown, The Death of the Messiah, 1994:
Most scholars accept the uniform testimony of the Gospels that Jesus died during the Judean prefecture of Pontius Pilate. (p. 1373)
It’s getting a bit tedious. I could cite many other scholars to this end.
Conclusion
I have used several standard aspects of reputable historical method (e.g. the criteria of multiple attestation, of embarrassment, of antiquity).
And the assessment that Jesus’ death by crucifixion is factual is shared by a very wide consensus of scholarship, including many of those unsympathetic to biblical Christianity. In fact, the wideness of the consensus is almost unprecedented in biblical scholarship.
I think it fair to say this manages the bias of my own horizons more than adequately. I am not so sure about others who ignore this consensus.
And so I am confident to say the Bible is absolutely correct and truthful when it says Jesus died by crucifixion and therefore (although I am sorry to put it so bluntly) the Qu’ran is wrong when it asserts Jesus did not die this way.