Stake or Cross? How did Jesus die? What proof do we have?

[JW Insider]

On 11/17/2018 at 12:45 AM, BillyTheKid46 said:

Even though Bruce W Longenecker gives some good points for the 21^st century, I find the argument Martin Hengel will suffice to the 1990 article.

So far, the Greek-speaking world, Greece, Asia Minor, Egypt and Syria, has been deliberately kept at the periphery of our discussion. The sources for crucifixion, which in the period of the empire markedly appears as a Roman punishment, are much fuller in Latin literature than in Greek.

The book is here, and in other places: https://books.google.com/books?id=UDEPFqTiQhUC

But you'll notice that Martin Hengel does not propose a single upright stake, but also believes the arms were stretched apart, to the sides, nailed separately, and that the sign was directly above Jesus' head, not his hands. Some good research that Hengel does offer, was found in the Watchtower:

*** w10 8/15 p. 4 Resist the Pressure of Public Opinion ***

• Execution on a torture stake subjected the victim to the worst of all possible indignities. Such an execution was “the penalty for slaves,” says scholar Martin Hengel. “As such it symbolized extreme humiliation, shame and torture.” Social pressure to renounce a person who was dishonored in this way was brought upon his family and friends. Since Christ died in this manner, all who wanted to be Christians in the first century C.E. thus had to face the challenge of public ridicule. Most people likely considered it absurd for someone to identify himself as a follower of a man who suffered impalement.

Although a casual reader might think it's implied here that Hengel believed that Jesus' died on a "torture stake" as defined by the Watchtower, a careful reader will notice that this is not stated.

Hengel offers a lot of very good evidence showing how even the Romans were themselves embarrassed and scandalized over the atrocities they were promoting whenever they allowed a crucifixion. Historians were reticent to mention them. Roman governors and even Caesars themselves did not want to speak of this particular atrocity even if they had been responsible for some of them. It was considered too disgusting even for a nation of people (Romans) who had become famous for public bloodshed. Hengel thus says:

• An alleged son of god who could not help himself at the time of his deepest need (Mark 15.31), and who rather required his followers to take up the cross, was hardly an attraction to the lower classes of Roman and Greek society. People were all too aware of what it meant to bear the cross through the city and then to be nailed to it (patibulum ferat per urbem, deinde offigitur cruci, Plautus, Carbonaria, fr. 2) and feared it; they wanted to get away from it. Moreover, early Christianity was not particularly a religion of slaves; at the time of Paul, and much more so with Pliny and Tertullian, it embraced men of every rank, omnis ordinis. This basic theme of the supplicium servile also illuminates the hymn in Philippians 2.6-11. Anyone who was present at the wor­ship of the churches founded by Paul in the course of his mission, in which this hymn was sung, and indeed any reader of Philippians in ancient times, would inevitably have seen a direct connection between the 'emptied himself, taking the form of a slave' (ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν μορφὴν δούλου λαβών) and the disputed end of the first strophe: 'he humbled himself and was obedient unto death, even the death of the cross'. Death on the cross was the penalty for slaves, as everyone knew; as such it symbolized extreme humilia­tion, shame and torture. Thus the θανάτου δὲ σταυροῦ is the last bitter consequence of the μορφὴν δούλου λαβών and stands in the most abrupt contrast possible with the beginning of the hymn with its description of the divine essence of the pre-existence of the cruci­fied figure, as with the exaltation surpassing anything that might be conceived (ὁ θεὸς αὐτὸν ὑπερύψωσεν). The one who had died the death of a slave was exalted to be Lord of the whole creation and bearer of the divine name Kyrios. If it did not have θανάτου δὲ σταυροῦ at the end of the first strophe, the hymn would lack its most decisive statement. 

[Manuel Boyet Enicola]

Let's boil down to the 'practicality' of this discussion:  

1.  The Romans are not stupid.  They must have figured out after their first few executions that it is very tedious to plant a stake or cross each time somebody is executed.  It will be far more easier to use a dead tree or have a permanently planted pole (stake / xylon) and simply raise and attach on top a stauros / patibulum with the condemned nailed to it.  

2.  A whole cross would weigh well over 135 kg (300 lb), but the crossbeam would not be quite as burdensome, weighing around 45 kg (100 lb). (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2651675)  If Jesus was to carry the pole (stake / xylon) only, that would still amount to 90 kg (198 lb) and is no easy task.  Carrying the crossbeam (stauros / patibulum) is deemed more realistic.  But then, an exhausted person deprived of sleep would easily stumble even on the lighter weight, so that Simon the Cyrene was compelled by the soldiers to carry it for him. 

3.  While the bible is silent on the details, it is interesting to note that nailing is associated with stauros, and hanging with xylon. 

Bottom line:  there is no conflict on translating stauros as torture stake/stake and xylon as stake or tree.  Using the word cross for any of the Greek words mentioned likewise do not give a clear picture. 

 

 

 

 

[JW Insider]

6 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

Aren't you missing something? It is also true that the majority of the time when this method was used, the prisoner would have been tied with rope or nailed to the patibulum. 

No. Not missing anything on that count. We have already seen from several sources that the patibulum could be tied, or not tied, or nailed or not nailed. The gospel accounts show that Jesus was not nailed until he reached the place of execution. So, whatever he carried sounds like the same process associated with the carrying of the stauros/patibulum. If he carried such a patibulum, then according to the use of the term stauros, he could be said to be carrying/bearing his own stauros/xylon. And if Jesus were nailed to this patibulum, and it was quickly hoisted onto a standing pole, then the pole itself was also the stauros/xylon, because it was used in this type of execution (stauros). If a patibulum were discarded and Jesus was nailed directly to the standing stauros/xylon, then it would still of course be a stauros/xylon execution. If he were nailed to a tree (xylon) or some other gallows (xylon) or complex contraption (xylon) made up of one or more pieces in any of several different directions, it would still be a stauros/xylon execution.

The point is that the simplest and quickest of all these optionns, to me, would be to nail him to the stauros/xylon he was carrying and hoist it onto a standing stauros/xylon. This assumption appears to be the simplest way of reading the gospel accounts, and for me, requires the least number of additional assumptions left out of the text. It fits the rushed nature of the judgment, the fact that he was given a stauros to carry, and that he was executed between or among others who were evidently undergoing stauros/xylon executions on the same day. The text doesn't say if he was nailed to the piece he was carrying. It doesn't say if a pole were already standing when he was nailed to it, or if it was on the ground and then hoisted. It doesn't say if a new hole was dug, or how deep it would need to have been. It doesn't say how the pole or contraption was propped up. It doesn't say if a ladder was required, or additional timbers or wedges to prop up the stauros . It doesn't even say if Jesus' feet were nailed, or tied, or neither.

6 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

The ancient writers proposed that Jesus was raised above the other criminals. That would mean his torture stake (stauros) was longer. However, as depicted, the Romans used many forms of execution.

The Bible doesn't say Jesus was raised above the other criminals. Maybe he was; maybe he wasn't.

6 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

 If the tau was used, most likely Jesus would have been tied to the crossbeam as indicated in history. Where in scripture does it state that or even hint on that?

I think you are saying that if Jesus were nailed to a crossbeam, the scriptures should have told us that he was also tied, even though we don't even know if Jesus was ever tied to a crossbeam.

6 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

When Peter was side to be crucified upside down at his own. The optic would certainly resemble a cross. died weight will fling the arms down to a certain point until someone stretches them outward. Does that mean he died on a Latin Cross? 

The Bible does not say that Peter was crucified or executed on any kind of stauros/xylon device. So there is no optic that is even necessarily related to a stauros execution here.

• (John 21:18, 19) Most truly I say to you, when you were younger, you used to clothe yourself and walk about where you wanted. But when you grow old, you will stretch out your hands and another man will clothe you and carry you where you do not wish.” 19 He said this to indicate by what sort of death he would glorify God. After he said this, he said to him: “Continue following me.”

This could just as well refer to a prisoner who is led around or carried around. With stauros executions, the victim was humiliated through complete nudity and could be contorted into obscene positions. So while the expression "stretch out your hands" was often associated with a stauros execution, it can also refer to a person who becomes an "invalid" or perhaps as a prisoner being led about. (This does not mean he was not "crucified." But speculating on the type of stauros is not going to get us anywhere.)

6 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

Just be prepared to defend this take with Jesus having to carry a COMPLETE cross, as the false religion now stipulates.

I covered this idea already in the first part of the post. There are no known examples of anyone carrying a two-beamed cross, or even a two beamed cross being erected on the spot for an execution. Doesn't mean it could never happen. However a well-researched historical understanding of stauros (n) and stauroo (v) is all one needs to make sense of the Biblical accounts. False religion comes up with a lot of things that make no sense: Christmas trees, Easter eggs, Pyramid measurements, eternal torment, justified warfare, wearing crosses around one's neck, kissing a Pope's ring, etc.

6 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

cross as a sign of shame (alaxvvrj) (Hebrews 12.2),1 0 the 'infamous stake' (infamis stipes),11 the 'barren' (infelix lignum) or 'criminal wood' {iravovpyiKov (jvAov),

The Greek doesn't come out at all when the text is copied from sites like https://epdf.tips/crucifixion-in-the-ancient-world-and-the-folly-of-the-message-of-the-cross-facet.html or https://religiondocbox.com/72495443-Pagan_and_Wiccan/Martin-hengel-crucifixion-in-the-ancient-world-and-the-folly-of-the-message-of-the-cross-philadelphia.html or https://religiondocbox.com/Pagan_and_Wiccan/72495443-Martin-hengel-crucifixion-in-the-ancient-world-and-the-folly-of-the-message-of-the-cross-philadelphia.html for example. The OCR is pretty good for Latin, of course, but can't handle Greek. All three of the sites I mentioned will give you the "alaxvvrj" that you quoted, when the actual word is αἰσχύνη/αἰσχύνης [from: "endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God" -KJV].

A point of interest on the words used for this type of execution is that in the next century after Jesus, two different words were finally utilized in order to distinguish between a simple stake and a "Latin cross." The word crux (crucis/crucibus) was continued as the word for a Latin cross, and the simple stake was given a different word, rather than the other way around as one would expect if the Watchtower's view were correct.

About 100 years after Revelation was likely written, Tertullian says:

"You hang Christians on crosses (crucibus) and stakes (stipitibus); what idol is there but is first moulded in clay, hung on a cross and stake (cruci et stipiti)? It is on a patibulum that the body of your god is first dedicated" (Apologeticus, 12.3).

"For this same letter TAU of the Greeks, which is our T, has the appearance of the cross (crucis)" (Apologeticus, 3.23.6)

And of course, closer to only 50 years after Revelation was written, we have Justin Martyr describing the shape of the stauros:

• And again the same prophet Isaiah, being inspired by the prophetic Spirit, said, "I have spread out my hands to a disobedient and gainsaying people, to those who walk in a way that is not good. They now ask of me judgment, and dare to draw near to God." And again in other words, through another prophet, He says, "They pierced My hands and My feet, and for My vesture they cast lots." And indeed David, the king and prophet, who uttered these things, suffered none of them; but Jesus Christ stretched forth His hands, being crucified by the Jews speaking against Him, and denying that He was the Christ. - First Apology, Chapter XXXV
• "God does not permit the lamb of the passover to be sacrificed in any other place than where His name was named; knowing that the days will come, after the suffering of Christ, when even the place in Jerusalem shall be given over to your enemies, and all the offerings, in short, shall cease; and that lamb which was commanded to be wholly roasted was a symbol of the suffering of the cross which Christ would undergo. For the lamb, which is roasted, is roasted and dressed up in the form of the cross. For one spit is transfixed right through from the lower parts up to the head, and one across the back, to which are attached the legs of the lamb." - Second Apology, Chapter XL

The Tertullian and Justin quotes were taken from https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/5595/jesus-and-the-cross/5646

[JW Insider]

5 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

Now as I mentioned earlier, if you're looking for a 21st-century outlook of the non-Christian cross, as I mentioned, space merchant makes a good point with Bruce W Longenecker.

The relevant portions of Longenecker's Crosses of Pompeii are already available online. Of course Longenecker pretty much demolishes the Watchtower's position, that the cross was not in use by by persons associated with Christian religion prior to Constantine. Notice how the publisher promotes his book on Amazon, The Cross Before Constantine: The Early Life of a Christian Symbol:

• This book brings together, for the first time, the relevant material evidence demonstrating Christian use of the cross prior to Constantine. Bruce Longenecker upends a longstanding consensus that the cross was not a Christian symbol until Constantine appropriated it to consolidate his power in the fourth century. Longenecker presents a wide variety of artifacts from across the Mediterranean basin that testify to the use of the cross as a visual symbol by some pre-Constantinian Christians. Those artifacts interlock with literary witnesses from the same period to provide a consistent and robust portrait of the cross as a pre-Constantinian symbol of Christian devotion. The material record of the pre-Constantinian period illustrates that Constantine did not invent the cross as a symbol of Christian faith; for an impressive number of Christians before Constantine's reign, the cross served as a visual symbol of commitment to a living deity in a dangerous world.

5 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

There are other of course, that can give you a conservative view. The place to start, J. D. Parsons, James H. Cone, Robin M. Jensen, Gunnar Samuelsson, John Granger Cook

Not looking for anyone's specific view, just good research and good evidence, good history, good linguistic analysis, etc. No one should go into a subject looking for authors who give a specific view.

[JW Insider]

3 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

 

Just saw this, and thought I should correct a mistake you made here, even though I won't have time to respond today to any of the other statements in your last post.

I looked at this picture and thought, how did anyone ever get the name Yehudah out of what is clearly the Shalamsion Ossuary, with the name Shalamsion repeated twice in the picture. Also, this is a recumbent (reclining) cross, not what's usually called a plain equilateral cross. So I looked up the original to see whether Longenecker made the error.

Here's what happened. You included the caption for an image that was above this one, and you didn't include the caption for the image you presented (which was below the image, not above it). Here are both of them, with the error corrected:

[Anna]

@JOHN BUTLER

This is funny, I had completely forgotten I had started this topic way back in 2017. Br. Rando alerted me to it. It seems like we didn't get very far in my topic. We got a lot further in yours! (Wait a minute, I just noticed it's Kurt's topic. Well you resurrected it then)

 

 

[JW Insider]

2 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

No correction needed when the picture is out of “Bruce W Longenecker” own book of Pompeii. It is shameful to discredit someone else’s work just because you believe it’s a mistaken representation.

Longenecker's work is OK. I just meant that when you copied from his book, you accidentally included his correct caption for Figure 6.6, but kept it attached to Figure 6.7, which has a different caption.

But back to the previous post . . .

7 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

Therefore, the only thing that is demolished is in the personal views and heads of those that refuse to accept the ancient writings that confirm the Stauros as a simple pole . . .

I think you misunderstand. I believe that "stauros" referred initially to a simple pole, but became associated with punishments and executions, in large part because these acts were for many years associated mostly with simple poles. (whipping posts, hanging gallows, etc.)  And even when the apparatus and contraptions for punishment and execution became a little more complex, a standing pole was still a prominent feature. This is actually about the same thing that the 1963 Awake! said about the development of the word "stauros." Note that Awake! says the Greek term "stauros" could mean not just a stake or a pole, but also a "cross."

I perfectly accept that it initially meant an upright standing pole, stake, or could refer to palisade of stakes, etc. And I accept that it could very often have this meaning in Jesus' day, too. But "stauros" according to the Awake!, also had the meaning of "cross" and this was (according to the Awake!) one "modification of it [that] was introduced as the dominion and usages of Rome extended themselves through the Greek-speaking countries." So I do not think that the association of the idea of torture and execution by a stauros means that we are only talking only about a two-beamed cross, Latin cross, Tau-shaped, or Chi-shaped cross. I think that any of these shapes were possible, even a tree with random branches. And I still think there is a good possibility that Jesus was executed on a simple, upright pole.

As I've said before, in any case, I think it's good that we have pointed out to people the possibility of this possible choice, because it immediately makes people think twice about the traditional cross symbol used all over Christendom. The only thing I don't accept is the claim that the evidence is so overwhelming that we must all accept that this absolutely was the shape of the execution instrument. In fact, after a lot of study, especially over the last two years, I have finally decided that the evidence leans slightly in favor of a Tau-shaped or, even more likely, the traditional crux immissa shaped cross. This is mostly based on a common practice with the stauros/patibulum, and the Gospel writers' focus on Jesus carrying his "stauros." There are about 6 other factors (bits of evidence) which add slightly to the reasons I lean this way. I have mentioned most of them already.

I believe the X shape is interesting, but I am pretty sure it survived into Christian art and symbolism mostly because of the Hebrew Tau of Ezekiel 9, and its appearance that looks like a Greek Chi ("X") that would appear to match the first initial of Christ (Xristou/Xristos). I think the symbolism of the Chi-Rho is exactly this: not Christ in an X-shaped body position, but X on the stauros. It implies an single upright pole in this case, but was also superimposed on the crux immissa to produce a "star" shape. 

Longenecker explains the Ezekiel 9:4 connection where the KJV says:

• And the LORD said unto him, Go through the midst of the city, through the midst of Jerusalem, and set a mark upon the foreheads of the men that sigh and that cry for all the abominations that be done in the midst thereof.

Since the word for mark is TAU, it can be read or translated as:

• And the LORD said unto him, Go through the midst of the city, through the midst of Jerusalem, and set a TAU upon the foreheads of the men that sigh and that cry for all the abominations that be done in the midst thereof.

I haven't seen it proven yet, but I would guess that the fact that pre-Christian Jewish ossuaries sometimes have a TAU on them in the shape of either a + or x is because this was the shape of the TAU at the time:

I haven't read it anywhere yet, but I assume that some scholar somewhere has already tied this letter to ossuaries in a similar way that Jesus is the Alpha and Omega. Where Omega is the LAST letter of the alphabet, and in Hebrew, TAU is the last letter, and a good letter to represent Death, מָוֶת which also ends in TAU in Hebrew.

 

The association of Tau with Death is also possibly done in Hebrews 2:14 which says in the KJV:

• Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;

But in Greek it uses "alliteration" with the letter T more than any other Bible verse. If you thought the English translation "fight the fine fight of the faith" was alliterative, check out this verse in Greek, keeping in mind that the subject is death, and also keeping in mind that an opening "Theta" as in the word thanatos (death) was often pronounced at the time more like the th in hot-head, not the th in "the."

• ἐπεὶ οὖν τὰ παιδία κεκοινώνηκεν σαρκός καὶ αἵματος καὶ αὐτὸς παραπλησίως μετέσχεν τῶν αὐτῶν ἵνα διὰ τοῦ θανάτου καταργήσῃ τὸν τὸ κράτος ἔχοντα τοῦ θανάτου τουτ' έστιν τὸν διάβολον

The writer (Paul?) manages to keep at least one Tau in a string of 12 consecutive words, and offers a total of 19 Taus in the last 20 words.

There! Figured I'd give you some "low-hanging fruit" since I'm pretty sure you already consider everything I've ever said to be fairly worthless anyway. 😉

[JOHN BUTLER]

12 hours ago, Anna said:

@JOHN BUTLER

This is funny, I had completely forgotten I had started this topic way back in 2017. Br. Rando alerted me to it. It seems like we didn't get very far in my topic. We got a lot further in yours! (Wait a minute, I just noticed it's Kurt's topic. Well you resurrected it then)

 

 

Br Rando has condemned me to death it seems, sending my to Gehenna.

Quote :  You stumbled yourself into Gehenna, but I won't allow you to stumble others... go on your way.

Quote :  I was waiting for you to blaspheme against Holy Spirit to expose and count your sin publicly. 

Quote: Consider Yourself Disfellowshipped..... you're not coming back legion....  no matter how hard you try... 

Is he a friend of yours ? 

[JW Insider]

14 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

I don’t discredit anyone’s research other than to submit an area of incompetence.

That statement of yours reminded me of the way in which you tried to discredit Leolaia's research from 1990.

On 11/17/2018 at 12:45 AM, BillyTheKid46 said:

There are many other research points. Needless to say, the article was written by Leolaia in 1990, unfortunately, has no serious understanding of the original Classic Greek. Not to mention other areas of incompetence done with the research.

Were you able to find even one point yet in that particular research that is not supported by additional research?  Sometimes, or I could even say nearly all the time, when you do  try to point out an area of incompetence, so far I've only seen it fall flat because the research you offer will usually be often be found to exactly support the research you are trying to counter.

For example, the single item you offered in conjunction with this statement about Leolaia was a point about a Persian method of execution mentioned at Esther 5:14. It's true that Leolaia had mentioned the same point in footnote number 17 about Esther 7:9,10. But all that footnote pointed out was that the Greek word "stauros" was used to describe Persian methods of execution that could be more complex, comprised of boards or additional stakes according to the Greek.

You didn't say what the specific incompetence was, but yet in the same post you seemed only to be able to prove the correctness of the research by adding: "We know in Ancient Persia the gallows were equated to the cross, according to Ulfilas with the term “galga” used in the gothic testament. Gallows is in the shape of two T’s together. An (H) football goal post."

I'm not talking about people's conclusions and opinions based on their research. But when it comes to the research and evidence itself, I have not yet seen any particular item of research or evidence that you have offered that did not fully support what Leolaia had stated.

 

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

Unfortunately, I don’t cater to incompetence, as your research has shown.

Sorry about that last post. I tried to do the whole thing from my Dragon speech app on my phone, and every time I reworded something, or decided to change it, I couldn't find the previous version. Then I found it all bunched down there at the bottom of my post. I removed most of the gibberish.

1 hour ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

I won’t have any further discussions with a person that has but dissociated himself and trying very hard to discredit himself with logistics within that incompetence, just like the example you happened to find in google, jwcross or was that just the intent to prove the Watchtower wrong with such incompetent research. Happy Holidays.

I guess that was supposed to be me? LOL. I can assure you that I have never dissociated myself, nor have I ever been disfellowshipped. I did "step down" as we call it, but I am pretty sure that you yourself would most likely consider this to have been at least a "step" in the right direction. After all, I am now responsible for a lot less teaching assignments in the congregation. Your response to this has repeatedly been to call me someone who is "no longer in good standing," but surely this is better for everyone all around. (Turns out there are plenty of sacred service activities that don't require an "eldership" or "pioneership" etc.)

The jwcross.pdf by Leolaia does not prove the Watchtower wrong. It does not even say that the Watchtower is wrong about Jesus dying on a simple, upright pole. It does try a bit too hard to show up the dogmatism and research errors, in staking out a position, but without crediting the Watchtower for exposing a major flaw in Christendom's assumptions, too. Also, the article avoids the issue of improper veneration to objects and idols, which has been a major part of the history of the cross. I understand that this is not a real focus of a "cross vs. stake" discussion, but since it is obviously geared to a JW and ex-JW audience, it should therefore give more credit where credit is due.

[Anna]

I haven't had time to read everyone's posts since the last time, but I have copied some interesting correspondence I found on "ibiblio.org" since I was researching Lucian's work, and especially its' translation.

The topic  was  anaskolopisthenta vs.stauron:

 

Lucian of Samosata's work "The Passing of Peregrinus" on pages 38-39 

(paragraph 34, line 7), as found in The Loeb Classical Library, 

Lucian with an English Translation by AM Harmon Volume V, 1972, makes 

use of the word STAURON when he states that as Peregrinus was heading 

for his self emolation, he was enjoying the admiration of the crowds 

"...not knowing, poor wretch, that men on their way to the cross 

( STAURON σταυρὸν ) οr in the grip of the executioner have 

many more at their heels."

However earlier (pages 12-13, paragraph 11, line 11) Lucian used a 

different word when describing " the man who was crucified in 

Palestine  (  Παλαιστίνῃ   

ἀνασκολοπισθέντα ANASKOLOPISTHENTA ) because he 

introduced this new cult into the world."

 

Again in paragraph 13 Lucian talks of the "crucified sophist" 

ἀνασκολοπισμένον ἐκεῖνον σοφιστὴν 

ANASKOLOPISΜΕΝΟΝ.

 

I also note that, according to Perseus Tuft, Lucian used 

ANASKOLOPISTHESOMAI in his Prometheus on Causasus paragraph 7. But I 

am unable to check a Greek text of this at present.

 

Prometheus: Perhaps there has been some nonsense talked already; that 

remains to be seen. But as you say your case is now complete, I will 

see what I can do in the way of refutation. And first about that 

meat. Though, upon my word, I blush for Zeus when I name it: to think 

that he should be so touchy about trifles, as to send off a God of my 

quality to crucifixion, just because he found a little bit of bone in 

his share! http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/luc/wl1/wl112.htm

 

I am not sure what word Lucian used for crucifixion earlier in 

Prometheus on Causasus paragraph 1, where he states:

 

Hermes:. The very thing. Steep rocks, slightly overhanging, inaccessible 

on every side; no foothold but a mere ledge, with scarcely room for 

the tips of one's toes; altogether a sweet spot for a crucifixion. 

Now, Prometheus, come and be nailed up; there is no time to lose.

Could someone please tell me what word was used in this instance?

 

Meier JP A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the historical Jesus. Vol.1, p.

102, note 20, states that anaskolopisthenta was probably used in 

paragraph 11 of Peregrinus scornfully ("mocking tone"), and that 

Lucian had an historical basis for using ANASKOLOPISTHENTA, "since 

crucifixion probably developed from impalement."

Similar to Lucian's use of both words, I have found that STAURON was  

used for crucifixion by Polybius (Histories 1.86 Book 1, Chapter 86, 

section 6), "All the baggage fell into the rebels'º hands and they 

made Hannibal himself prisoner. 6 Taking him at once to Spendius' 

cross they tortured him cruelly there, and then, taking Spendius down 

from the cross, they crucified Hannibal alive on it.."

 

An alternative reading found using Perseus tufts has:

They at once took him up to the cross on which Spendius was hanging, 

and after the infliction of exquisite tortures, took down the 

latter's body and fastened Hannibal, still living, to his cross; and 

then slaughtered thirty Carthaginians

 

Perseus tufts has the Greek as:touton men oun parachrêma pros ton tou 

Spendiou stauron agagontes kai timôrêsamenoi pikrôs ekeinon men 

katheilon, touton d' anethesan zônta kai perikatesphaxan triakonta 

tôn Karchêdoniôn tous epiphanestatous peri to tou Spendiou sôma, 

tês tuchês hôsper epitêdes ek paratheseôs amphoterois enallax 

didousês aphormas eis huperbolên tês kat' allêlôn timôrias.

 

Later Polybius used anaskolopisthenta in this same work, namely in 

Histories (10.33.8)." Suddenly letting down the portcullis which they 

had raised somewhat higher by mechanical means, they attacked the 

intruders and capturing them crucified them before the wall." http://

penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Polybius/10*.html 27/12/07

Perseus tufts has the Greek as:

Hoi de katarraktas, hous eichon oligon exôterô dia mêchanêmatôn 

anêmmenous, aiphnidion kathêkan kai epebalonto, kai toutous 

kataschontes pro tou teichous aneskolopisan. (1.11)

Could someone tell me if there may be a grammatical pattern or reason 

as to why these two authors sometimes used ANASKOLOPISTHENTA, or 

inflections of it, and other times used STAURON? Perhaps there is 

another possible reason for the choice of words apart from those 

given by Meier.

Are there any other ancient authors who used both terms to describe 

crucifixion?

Although ANASKOLOPISTHENTA isn't used in the GNT, did any of the 

early christian writers use it, or inflections of it?

Jonathan Clerke

clerke at humanperformance.cc

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anita Clerke wrote:

> Although ANASKOLOPISTHENTA isn't used in the GNT, did any of the

> early christian writers use it, or inflections of it?

Using  ANASKOLOPIS as my search term, I find:

Herodotus Hist.

Hist 9.78.15

Philo Judaeus Phil.

Post 61.7; Som 2.213.5; Jos 96.3

Dio Chrysostomus Soph.

Orationes 17.15.5

Lucianus Soph.

Prom 2.3; Prom 7.9; Cont 14.10; Pisc 2.8; Peregr 11.11

Acta et Martyrium Apollonii

Acta et martyrium Apollonii 40.4

Cassius Dio Hist.

Historiae Romanae 62.11.4.3; S164.22

Heliodorus Scr. Erot.

Aeth 4.20.2.8

Gregorius Nyssenus Theol.

Orationes viii de beatitudinibus 44.1297.53

Eusebius Scr. Eccl. et Theol.

Eccl Hist 2.25.5.4;  8.8.1.13

Epiphanius Scr. Eccl.

Haer 1.260.14

Joannes Chrysostomus Scr. Ecc

In epistulam i ad Corinthios 61.356.52; In Petrum et Paulum 59.494.68

   Theodoretus Scr. Eccl.

Historia religiosa 31.13.12; Interpretatio in xii prophetas minores

81.1956.18

Joannes Malalas Chronogr.

Chron 473.10

Hesychius Lexicogr.

Lexicon (A-O alpha.4583.1 20a;  Lexicon (A-O alpha.4585.1 ‚20a;

Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anita Clerke wrote:

> Could someone tell me if there may be a grammatical pattern or reason

> as to why these two authors sometimes used ANASKOLOPISTHENTA, or

> inflections of it, and other times used STAURON? Perhaps there is

> another possible reason for the choice of words apart from those

> given by Meier.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As you'll see from the LSJ entry on anaskolop-izô

anaskolop-izô :--Pass., with fut. Med. -skolopioumai (in pass. sense)

Hdt.3.132, 4.43, but Pass.

A. -skolopisthêsomai Luc.Prom.7 : aor. -eskolopisthên ib.2,10: pf.

-eskolopismai Id.Peregr.13 :--fix on a pole or stake, impale, Hdt.1.128,

3.159, al.; in 9.78 it is used convertibly with anastauroô, as in

Ph.1.237,687, Luc.Peregr.11.

the reason there might be alternating usage is that the terms are

synonymous.

Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon)

e-mail jgibson000 at comcast.net

---------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't have access to this work by Lucian either and don't wish to spend the time to look for it since I have other work to accomplish.  I will nevertheless give you some thoughts regarding this.

It is customary to think of a cross in the fashion in which we see it in virtually every church as the form of a "t."  The proper designation of σταυρός [STAUROS], however, is a stake.  Although the word σταυρός [STAUROS] is not used in the passage, I refer you to MPol where it refers to Polycarp's execution

ὅτε δὲ ἡ πυρκαϊὰ ἡτοιμάσθη, ἀποθέμενος ἑαυτῷ πάντα τὰ ἱμάτια καὶ λύσας τὴν ζώνην, ἐπειρᾶτο καὶ ὑπολύειν ἑαυτόν, μὴ πρότερον τοῦτο ποιῶν διὰ τὸ ἀεὶ ἕκαστον τῶν πιστῶν σπουδάζειν ὅστις τάχιον τοῦ χρωτὸς αὐτοῦ ἅψηται. ἐν παντὶ γὰρ ἀγαθῆς ἕνεκεν πολιτείας καὶ πρὸ τῆς πολιᾶς ἐκεκόσμητο. (3) εὐθέως οὖν αὐτῷ περιετίθετο τὰ πρὸς τὴν πυρὰν ἡρμοσμένα ὄργανα. μελλόντων δὲ αὐτῶν καὶ προσηλοῦν, εἶπεν· Ἄφετέ με οὕτως. ὁ γὰρ δοὺς ὑπομεῖναι τὸ πῦρ δώσει καὶ χωρὶς τῆς ὑμετέρας ἐκ τῶν ἥλων

ἀσφαλείας ἄσκυλτον ἐπιμεῖναι τῇ πυρᾷ.

Holmes, M. W. (1999). The Apostolic Fathers : Greek texts and English translations (Updated ed.) (236). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books.

hOTE DE hH PURKAIA hHTOIMASQH, APOQEMENOS hEAUTWi PANTA TA hIMATIA KAI LUSAS THN ZWNHN, EPEIRATO KAI hUPOLUEIN hAUTON, MH PROTERON TOUTO POIWN DIA TO AEI hEKASTON TWN PISTWN SPOUDAZEIN hOSTIS TAXION TOU XRWTOS AUTOU hAYHTAI.  EN PANTI GAR AGAQHS hENEKEN POLITEIAS KAI PRO THS POLIAS EKEKOSMHTO. (3) EUQEWS OUN AUTWi PERIETIQETO TA PROS THN PURAN hHRMOSMENA ORGANA.  MELLONTWN DE AUTWN KAI PROSHLOUN, EIPEN, "AFETE ME hOUTWS.  hO GAR DOUS hUPOMEINAI TO PUR DWSEI KAI XWRIS THS hUMETERAS ED TWN hHLWN ASFALEIAS ASKULTON EPIMEINAI THi PURAi

Note the use here of PROSHLOW and hHLOS indicating that they had intended to nail him to an unstated object which was most likely a stake since it is doubtful that they intended to nail him to the firewood they place about him.  I therefore think the answer to your question regarding why one or the other word might be used is that they were virtually interchangeable.

George G F Somsel

gfsomsel@yahoo.com

 

 

[JW Insider]

2 hours ago, Anna said:

I therefore think the answer to your question regarding why one or the other word might be used is that they were virtually interchangeable.

I've seen a word study on these two different basic terms that shows that they both went through a similar history, in both verb and noun forms, and both began with similar simple meanings and both developed and encompassed similar meanings when associated with punishments, and both took on the same prefix "ana."

Before I forget, what I really loved about the perseus.tufts.edu site was that in earlier versions, years ago, you could pick a classical Greek or Latin (or other) text, and then when you had to look up a word, the color would change from bluish to purplish (the old default HTML style for a "visited link"). This would give you kind of a visual feedback on how many words you had to look up, and also was a reminder that you had already looked up the word if you ran across the same word again later in the text. 

I think you have seen the 337-page David Chapman PDF for his book "Ancient Jewish and Christian Perceptions of Crucifixion." I'm pretty sure that someone already linked it here in this topic (might have been you?). Anyway, it had a pretty good summary of the Greek terms on page 9 through 13 (where the footnotes even include a point about the Witnesses).

It's in agreement with your post above, but I'll share a good part of it, except for the footnotes which take up half the page on average:

----------remainder of post from David Chapman PDF ---------------------

Greek Terminology

The familiar New Testament terms for the crucifixion of Jesus include the

verbs σταυρόω (46 times, though not all of Jesus), συσταυρόω (5 times),

and άνασταυρόω (in Heb 6:6), as well as the noun σταυρός. Also NT

authors speak of the event with προσπήγνυμι ("to affix"; in Acts 2:23)

or with the passive of κρεμάννυμι and έπϊ ξύλου ("to hang upon a tree"; cf.

Acts 5:30; 10:39; Gal 3:13).

Combining this terminology with that in Lucian's Prometheus*

and in other works of Greek antiquity, several more

words surface that, in context, can designate a crucifixion event: particularly

άνασκολοπίζω (verb) and σκόλοψ (noun), and including verbs such as

άνακρεμάννυμι, κατακλείω, καταπήγνυμι, πήγνυμι, προσηλόω, and

προσπατταλεύω (= προσπασσαλεύω).

Nevertheless, in Greek it is rare for the semantic range of any single term

to be confined to "crucifixion." For example, a σταυρός appears originally to

have referred to an upright pole. Thus a σταυρός can be a stake in a

σταύρωμα ("palisade"; e.g., Thucydides, Hist, vi.100) as well as a pole on

which a person is impaled or crucified. Hence it naturally follows that both

άνασταυρόω and σταυρόω can refer to the building of stockades as well as

to the setting up of poles (especially for the purpose of suspending people on

σταυροί). Elsewhere a σταυρός can be used as a place of scourging, with

the death following from some other method.

Α σκόλοψ likewise generally refers to "anything pointed" (Liddell &

Scott, s.v.), including pales, stakes, thorns, a point of a fishhook, and (in the

plural) a palisade. And similarly, the cognate verb άνασκολοπίζω need not

exclusively refer to "fix on a pole or a stake, impale.

However, the "fundamental" references to an upright pole in σταυρός and

its cognates, and to pointy objects in σκόλοψ and its cognates, does not

rightly imply such that terminology in antiquity, when applied to crucifixion,

invariably referred to a single upright beam. This is a common word study

fallacy in some populist literature. In fact, such terminology often referred

in antiquity to cross-shaped crucifixion devices. For example, Lucian, in a

brief dialogue that employs most Greek crucifixion vocabulary, refers to the

"crucifixion" of Prometheus, whose arms are pinned while stretched from one

rock to another. Such a cross-shaped crucifixion position in the Roman era

may actually have been the norm; nevertheless, the point to be sustained at

this stage is that this position was not the only one to be designated with these

Greek terms.

In addition to recognizing the broader semantic ranges of these terms, it is

helpful to note that different authors prefer certain terminology. Thus, while

Philo knows σταυρός as a "cross" (see Flacc. 72, 84; contrast σταυροί as

fortifications in Agr. 11; Spec. Leg. iv.229), he does not use the cognate verb

άνασταυρόω, preferring instead άνασκολοπίζω. Josephus, on the other

hand, employs only άνασταυρόω and σταυρόω but never άνασκολοπίζω.

Hengel contends that in the Classical period Herodotus utilized άνασταυρόω

and άνασκολοπίζω with different nuances from one another (άνασκολοπίζω

of the suspension of living men and άνασταυρόω of dead men), but that after

Herodotus these two verbs become synonymous. Such a picture may require

some more nuance, but it is certainly the case that after Herodotus some

authors use the terms interchangeably and that both verbs can designate acts

of crucifixion (even in the narrow English sense of the word).