Contradictions in the Crucifixion

The Gospel accounts of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ under Pontius Pilate contain numerous discrepancies between each other and with external historical accounts. I’ve drawn here on a book by DM Murdock, Who Was Jesus? Fingerprints of the Christ, which summarises some main logical weaknesses in claims that the Gospels are consistent.


Mark 15:25 states the crucifixion happened during the third hour, while John 19:14 says around the sixth hour. Perhaps they mean different orders of time, but on the surface they are inconsistent and cannot both be right. John also differs from the synoptics by putting the Passover after the crucifixion instead of at the Last Supper. This is just the surface of the discrepancies between the fictional mythic imaginations which informed the compilation of the different gospels.


The death of God on the cross has strong precedents in pre-Christian religion. Church Father Justin Martyr (110-165AD) stated that belief in the crucifixion of Christ is “nothing different from what you [Romans] believe regarding those you esteem sons of Jupiter” (The First Apology, XXI). Martyr held that there existed in the stories of other gods the themes of the virgin birth, the crucifixion, the death and resurrection, and the ascension. There is evidence these motifs were imported into Christianity as a synthesis of various religious beliefs, imagined as an incarnate historical saviour.


The three crosses with two criminals and the king is historically unlikely, seemingly without precedent. In fact the three crosses are an old motif, the constellation of the South Celestial Pole when Canopus was the pole star fourteen thousand years ago.

Matthew 27:52 states that the dead rose and walked in the city and appeared to many when Jesus died. This impossible event is not recorded elsewhere, suggesting it did not happen. Any truth in this gospel story is allegorical rather than historical.

Justin Martyr's mythic views about Christ, comparing him with Roman Gods and demigods, is just one example to cast doubt on the claim that the gospels are historically accurate, including the story of the cross. Once the historic accuracy is thrown into question, it becomes conceivable that the goal of the writers was creative genesis of a mythical framework for salvation. The options are that the Gospels are carefully embroidered constructions upon a historic base, or that the writers used the messianic prophecy of the Old Testament as a blueprint among their sources to imagine a real messiah.

Differences between the gospels reflect political competition between religious factions, who each sought to canonise their own views rather than accept a purely historic record. Stories appear to be religious gestures to big old traditions – Lazarus is a way to baptise Osiris within the new Christian synthesis. Many Romans, for example Celsus, thought the claim that Jesus Christ really existed was absurd, in view of his absence from the Roman historical record despite the gospel claims he was famed far and wide, in a place not short of writers.

The spear in the side, the empty tomb, the stigmata in palms and feet, each faces discrepancies. Early manuscripts of Matthew 27:49-50 have Christ wounded with the spear before he dies, while John 19:33-34 says Christ is already dead when he is wounded in the side. The gospels differ over who was with Mary Magdalene at the empty tomb. Crucifixion was done through wrists and ankles, as a body nailed by hands and feet would fall off the cross.

The real message of the words of Christ to doubting Thomas – feel my wounds – is that we should doubt whether a real man Jesus Christ was crucified under Pilate as King of the Jews. We should doubt it because the Romans did not crucify through the hands. The visible proof of his hands by which Christ assuages Thomas’s doubt is not evidence for the physical resurrection, but rather suggests the whole passion of Christ is primarily an event of mythic imagination.

Thank you for a highly interesting post! I would just like to add the similarities between Dionysis and Jesus, inc. that he died a violent death, then came back to life, and sat next to his father (Zeus) on his throne, as Jesus is said to have done. And I believe his mother was a mortal virgin as well. There are also comparisons to the Gilgamesh Epic.

Rather than Contradictions in the Crucifixion your post should have been titled Rehash of Attempts to Discredit Christianity by Repetition of Ancient Nonsense. You only cited one contradiction in your post and you justify that one.

BTW, you might want to actually read Justin Martyr's Apology. You will see clearly what he is explaining and it is opposite of your interpretation. As for what is possible in crucifixion, I suggest, A Doctor At Calvary, and The Crucifixion, A Forensic Analysis.

stahrwe wrote:Rather than Contradictions in the Crucifixion your post should have been titled Rehash of Attempts to Discredit Christianity by Repetition of Ancient Nonsense. You only cited one contradiction in your post and you justify that one.

Hello Stahrwe. If the Gospel was historical, there would be evidence for it in Jewish and Roman sources, not just in Christian sources. Many themes are included in the Gospels as part of a syncretic political religious agenda to establish a new faith, with the incarnation the core myth. I think it is a good myth, but largely fictional. If there was widespread recognition of Christ at the time he lived, he would have made the dogs of history bark through a record of evidence of his existence. Philo should have heard of Christ but gives no record of having done so, and his closeness to the material is shown by the use of his ideas in the Gospel of John. The story of Jesus has to be the biggest case ever of the dog that did not bark, through fiction passed off as fact. Either Jesus was very different from the usual picture or he was made up entirely.

A great thirty page coverage of this material is at http://www.stellarhousepublishing.com/o ... ianity.pdf

The Origins of Christianity and the Quest for the Historical Jesus Christ
Excerpted from The Christ Myth Anthology By Acharya S/D.M. Murdock
Please feel free to print out and distribute this ebook in any way, both online and offline!
http://www.StellarHousePublishing.com
Table of Contents
The Origins of Christianity and the Quest for the Historical Jesus Christ 3
Introduction 3
The Controversy 3
History and Positions of the Debate 3
"Pious Fraud" 4
The Proof 4
The Gnostics 5
Biblical Sources 5
Non-Biblical Sources 6
The Characters 7
The Major Players 9
Buddha 9
Horus of Egypt 12
Mithra, Sun God of Persia 13
Krishna of India 14
Prometheus of Greece 18
The Creation of a Myth 18
The "Son" of God is the "Sun" of God 19
Etymology Tells the Story 20
The Book of Revelation is Egyptian and Zoroastrian 21
The "Patriarchs" and "Saints" are the Gods of Other Cultures 21
The "Disciples" are the Signs of the Zodiac 22
Was Jesus an Essene Master? 23
Qumran is Not an Essene Community 23
Was the New Testament Composed by Therapeuts? 24
Conclusion 24
Bibliography 25

Robert Tulip wrote:

stahrwe wrote:Rather than Contradictions in the Crucifixion your post should have been titled Rehash of Attempts to Discredit Christianity by Repetition of Ancient Nonsense. You only cited one contradiction in your post and you justify that one.

Hello Stahrwe. If the Gospel was historical, there would be evidence for it in Jewish and Roman sources, not just in Christian sources. Many themes are included in the Gospels as part of a syncretic political religious agenda to establish a new faith, with the incarnation the core myth. I think it is a good myth, but largely fictional. If there was widespread recognition of Christ at the time he lived, he would have made the dogs of history bark through a record of evidence of his existence. Philo should have heard of Christ but gives no record of having done so, and his closeness to the material is shown by the use of his ideas in the Gospel of John. The story of Jesus has to be the biggest case ever of the dog that did not bark, through fiction passed off as fact. Either Jesus was very different from the usual picture or he was made up entirely.

A great thirty page coverage of this material is at http://www.stellarhousepublishing.com/o ... ianity.pdf

The Origins of Christianity and the Quest for the Historical Jesus Christ
Excerpted from The Christ Myth Anthology By Acharya S/D.M. Murdock
Please feel free to print out and distribute this ebook in any way, both online and offline!
http://www.StellarHousePublishing.com
Table of Contents
The Origins of Christianity and the Quest for the Historical Jesus Christ 3
Introduction 3
The Controversy 3
History and Positions of the Debate 3
"Pious Fraud" 4
The Proof 4
The Gnostics 5
Biblical Sources 5
Non-Biblical Sources 6
The Characters 7
The Major Players 9
Buddha 9
Horus of Egypt 12
Mithra, Sun God of Persia 13
Krishna of India 14
Prometheus of Greece 18
The Creation of a Myth 18
The "Son" of God is the "Sun" of God 19
Etymology Tells the Story 20
The Book of Revelation is Egyptian and Zoroastrian 21
The "Patriarchs" and "Saints" are the Gods of Other Cultures 21
The "Disciples" are the Signs of the Zodiac 22
Was Jesus an Essene Master? 23
Qumran is Not an Essene Community 23
Was the New Testament Composed by Therapeuts? 24
Conclusion 24
Bibliography 25

Murdock is a nut job. Just google her and read the reviews.
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/13570

stahrwe wrote:Murdock is a nut job. Just google her and read the reviews.
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/13570

Stahrwe, I've seen this 'rational responders' material before, and have the impression that they stick to a fairly narrowly defined 'suck-up' mainstream of orthodox opinion and are rather bigoted about anything else. Murdock is challenging the basis of orthodox opinion by arguing that ancient religion is much more complex and interlinked than has been recognised. She may be wrong on specific claims, but overall the case she makes in this paper is a legitimate rational argument, vis: "The "gospel" story of Jesus is not a factual portrayal of a historical "master" who walked the earth 2,000 years ago. It is a myth built upon other myths and godmen, who in turn were personifications of the ubiquitous sun god mythos."

Precisely how the ancient religions relate to each other is open to debate, especially since fanatical Christians aggressively destroyed all evidence they could find that might contradict their dogma, such as the great library of Alexandria. Inevitably, reconstructing ancient myth involves speculation about sketchy material. My view is that Murdock's claims are plausible, but require more research to validate them. This is a reasonable scholarly project, but it is not helped by fundamentalist and rationalist bigots who use violent exclusionary language.

A poster on the so-called 'rational responders' site uses the argument that if he can find one dubious claim then all Murdock's claims are rendered equally dubious. Those predisposed by bigotry to assume that Murdock is a 'nut job' say that evidence for some of her claims is debatable so the entire thesis falls. This line of argument is ideologically motivated and fallacious, and ignores the overall scholarship and logic of her findings regarding the mythical context of Christianity.

Robert Tulip wrote:Those predisposed by bigotry to assume that Murdock is a 'nut job' say that evidence for some of her claims is debatable so the entire thesis falls. This line of argument is ideologically motivated and fallacious, and ignores the overall scholarship and logic of her findings regarding the mythical context of Christianity.

This is also a classic ad hominem attack, skirting around Murdock's arguments by attacking Murdock personally. Even if Murdock was a "nut job" it says nothing about the validity of her arguments.

By the way, Stahrwe, is it ironic that you spend more time on atheist web sites than I do? I have heard of the rational response squad, but I have never bothered visiting the web site. I find atheist web sites to be rather pointless.

Finally, finding a forum where Murdock's name comes up in idle conversation hardly constitutes worthwhile criticism. There might be legitimate historical, scholarly questions about the validity of her arguments, but none have come up as of yet.

Horus, the Sky or Sun god, depending upon the region predates Jesus the Christ. Coincidentally, he had 12 disciples, performed various "miracles," had a virgin birth, was buried for three days, and resurrected.

Really all of it can be explained astrologically. The three magi represent the 3 stars of Orion's belt, the align with Sirius on December 25th. On December 25th the Sun rises in the constellation Virgo, or Virgin, ie a virgin birth. The constellation Crux, Latin for cross.

I say we should take the Church to court... for infringement.

geo wrote:

Robert Tulip wrote:Those predisposed by bigotry to assume that Murdock is a 'nut job' say that evidence for some of her claims is debatable so the entire thesis falls. This line of argument is ideologically motivated and fallacious, and ignores the overall scholarship and logic of her findings regarding the mythical context of Christianity.

This is also a classic ad hominem attack, skirting around Murdock's arguments by attacking Murdock personally. Even if Murdock was a "nut job" it says nothing about the validity of her arguments.

By the way, Stahrwe, is it ironic that you spend more time on atheist web sites than I do? I have heard of the rational response squad, but I have never bothered visiting the web site. I find atheist web sites to be rather pointless.

Finally, finding a forum where Murdock's name comes up in idle conversation hardly constitutes worthwhile criticism. There might be legitimate historical, scholarly questions about the validity of her arguments, but none have come up as of yet.

"Rational Responders" is actually a rather contemptible site.

See comments at http://www.freethoughtnation.com/forums ... =18&t=1208