Why was Jesus, if he existed, was crucified right side up instead of the usual head toward the ground?
Why was Jesus, if he existed, was crucified right side up instead of the usual head toward the ground?
Here's another one: if crucifixion was considered an established way of brutally killing one, why is his suffering considered so profound, when presumably several others had gone through the same? I know it's about the return, but he could have done that after falling into a ravine or something mundane like that.
I think it's obvious looking at it this way Jesus is either
a) an amalgamation of various characters smooshed together to tell a more clear story, sort of like king Arthur..
b) a real specific story that just got a lot of attention like George Floyd or Eric Garner.
I believe that there was multiple ways and that upside down wasn’t necessarily the norm
For example Seneca the Younger wrote as listed by the New World Encyclopedia (1)
Crucifixion was carried out in many ways under the Romans. Josephus describes multiple positions of crucifixion during the siege of Jerusalem in 70 C.E. when Titus crucified the rebels;[10] and Seneca the Younger recounts: "I see crosses there, not just of one kind but made in many different ways: some have their victims with head down to the ground; some impale their private parts; others stretch out their arms on the gibbet."
At times the gibbet was only one vertical stake, called in Latin crux simplex or palus. This was the most basic available construction for crucifying. Frequently, however, there was a cross-piece attached either at the top to give the shape of a T (crux commissa) or just below the top, as in the form most familiar in Christian symbolism (crux immissa). Other forms were in the shape of the letters X and Y
Ive also listed the original source from their citation here
Dialogue "To Marcia on Consolation," 6.20.3 The Latin Library. Retrieved February 21, 2019 with Google Translate link here
It was an aesthetic choice by the artist.
I’d just like to add that academically no one disputes his existence. That’s a militant atheist talking point.
militant atheist
speaking as "one of those", let me just tell you, we generally concede that there was probably some guy named Yeshua Ben Joseph, who happened to have lived in Nazareth, and who happened to be a faith healer.
At that time and place both Yeshua and Joseph were incredibly common names. Yeshua Ben Joseph means "yeshua, son of joseph". (yeshua is the latinized-spelling of the hebrew name that Jesus actually was called by. Just so we're clear. Would hate to lose you over a technicality.)
So it's not just possible, but incredibly probable there were in fact dozens upon dozens of dudes named Yeshua who happened to be sons of dudes named Joseph floating around. And at least one of those dozens, floating around Nazareth. in more modern (and specifically US,) terms, it'd be like finding some guy named Christopher, whose father was named Michael, from the Ozarks.
Also, Jewish mystics doing the faith-healing-thing were actually cropping up all over the region. Normally, they got knifed in the street before they got too annoying. If the local jewish authorities found out... they'd probably get thrown from a cliff. (this is quite untidy. it annoyed the romans incredibly)(Romans did love the fighting, but the bodies rotting in ditches... not so much.)
Okay. So it's not only possible that some dude so named. and that that guy happened to be a faith healer.
In fact, this is probably why when the well-educated greek speaking authors of the Gospels decided to get around to filling in the back story, they made so many contradictory statements about jesus. You see, they were researching four different Jesuses. (all of whom were probably faith healers.). AWKWARD.
Joking aside. It's never really been expected to find any sort of documentation or "historical record" contemporary to jesus. When you're talking about ancient history and people like that, there's just a lot of things you take for granted and enjoy the stories of, while recognizing they're... embellished.
Lets just say as a jewish mystical faith healer the historic jesus might be rather surprised by the shit he's reputed to have said. cuz most of that was only recorded half a century or more after he died. (And then was edited again over and over until the council of nicea decided what was in fact canon and gave the books a final edit. It should be largely noted that the Council of Nicea... was there to decide if Jeus was in fact the 'son of god' or, what that meant and if he was divine. Which was mostly...ah... political. and 3 centuries after his death.)
academically no one disputes
I'll just stop you right there. The probability of there not being an academic dispute about anything is miniscule. There are broad agreements on some topics, but counterpoints will still be easy to find.
My understanding from the Data over Dogma podcast (wherein a biblical scholar, and an atheist come together to trash evangelical apologia and other misconceptions about early Christianity and what the Bible contains/lacks) is that there is a single quasi-relevant academic that contends Christianity likely did not form around a historical person with a name similar to Jesus.
His arguments have been examined by academics but not widely accepted. His arguments aren't widely accepted because it seems a lot more likely that there was a guy named Jesus who whose teachings inspired a group of followers, than that a group of proto- Christians invented him.
While there may well have been a Jesus of Nazareth which inspired the stories of the Bible... "Jesus" is a complete fabrication constructed over centuries based on fanfiction written at least a lifetime after the man who might've inspired such fiction was dead.
Jesus the undead cleric demigod never existed in the same way Mithras never existed. It's just a bronze age myth.
Okay, I simply said he historically existed.