Jesus not crucified on torture stake. Impossible! (page 21)

drew sagan....I don't think there one could speak of a consensus about a book as obscure as Parsons' 1896 The Non-Christian Cross, but I can give you some of my impressions. John Denham Parsons was a Unitarian who rejected both orthodox Christianity and the Theosophy movement but who, as a member of the Society for Psychical Research, was interested in the same spiritistic and pantheistic topics as Blavatsky's theosophists. In 1895, he published Our Sun-God or Christianity Before Christ, in which he tried to prove that Christianity as a whole was of "pagan" origin, and in 1906 he published his philosophical treatise The Nature and Purpose of the Universe, where he speculated among other things on what temperature it is in the spirit world (p. 468). I find it interesting how the Society cites him frequently as an expert on the cross unaware of his spiritist leanings and agenda in attributing everything in Christianity to pagan influence.

The Society most frequently quotes from chapter 1, "Was the Stauros of Jesus Cross-Shaped?", and it is pretty clear that Parsons was not very well informed. The chapter starts out making a very valid point, that in the vast majority of instances when crucifixion is described in ancient sources, the device is not described. One should thus not assume in a given instance, without evidence to the contrary, what form the cross took. The author however asserts that in most of these cases, the instrument was a pointed stauros or stake:

"It is also probable that in most of the many cases where we have no clue as to which kind of stauros was used, the cause of the condemned one's death was transfixion to a pointed stauros".

No explanation is given why this should be the case. The historical evidence rather shows that crucifixion practices changed over time, such that simple stakes would have been most common in the early period (such as prior to the third century BC) and composite crosses would have been most common in the later period (such as in the second century AD, when the composite cross was repeatedly described as typical for the stauros). Next, Parsons tries to define the meanings of stauros and crux.

"Now the Greek word which in Latin versions of the New Testament is translated as crux, and in English versions is rendered as cross, i.e., the word stauros, seems to have, at the beginning of our era, no more meant a cross than the English word stick means a crutch. It is true that a stick may be in the shape of a crutch, and that the stauros to which Jesus was affixed may have been in the shape of a cross. But just as the former is not necessarily a crutch, so the latter was not necessarily a cross".

First of all, stauros was indeed the equivalent for Latin crux at the "turn of the era"; it was the term that was used to refer to the device used in Roman crucifixion (regardless of what form the device took). I think Parsons' point here is that the shape of the device was not part of the word's denotation, such that the stauros was not necessarily cross-shaped in the same way that a stick is not necessarily crutch-shaped. But pointing out that stauros did not always refer to cross-shaped devices does not mean that it seldom referred to them, which is the view that Parsons wants to adopt. The stick/crutch analogy is also a rather poor one. It is really the function of crutches that makes them distinct (they are used to support one's weight when one needs to limp), and whereas we have a distinct word in English other than "stick" to refer to this object (namely, crutch) there was no other word in Greek to refer specifically to composite crosses. If English was like this, then "stick" would indeed mean "crutch", with the latter as a secondary technical sense just as stauros developed a secondary meaning to become an execution term (as can best be seen in the verbal form, which changed from "to build a fence or palisade" to "execute a person by affixing him or her to a stauros").

"What the ancients used to signify when they used the word stauros, can easily be seen by referring to either the Iliad or the Odyssey. It will there be found to clearly signify an ordinary pole or stake without any cross-bar".

Homer (8th century BC) is the earliest of all the classical writers and used the word stauros before crucifixion was even invented, so quoting him is hardly relevant to the meaning of stauros in the first century AD. This is like being surprised that farmers in the 19th century didn't use the word "broadcasting" (spreading seed or fertilizer over a wide area) to refer to radio transmissions — well duh, the radio hadn't been invented then yet! Similarly, one would hardly expect Homer to refer to something that didn't yet exist.

"And it is as thus signifying a single piece of wood that the word in question is used throughout the old Greek classics."

First of all, Homer's use of the word stauros is most definitely not the same "throughout the old Greek classics," as later writers began to use the word to refer to a kind of execution (cf. stauroó for earlier writers like Thucydides in the fifth century BC meant "to fence around, build a palisade" but later writers like Polybius in the second century BC used it to mean "to affix a live person to a stauros"). When stauros did not refer to an execution instrument, it properly referred to a pole or stake. But when it had the execution instrument in view, the word did not necessarily signify "a single piece of wood"; the word referred to the execution apparatus whatever form it took — it didn't matter if the device had a patibulum or not, or if it had a sedile or not, or if it had a titulus or not. So the fact that the word originally meant "stake" (not "execution stake") in Homer does not mean that it preferentially referred to stakes and not composite crosses in the later period. And since we know from Plautus, Licinius Macer, Seneca, and other writers that the apparatus commonly included a patibulum and took the form of a composite cross in the early Imperial period, and since stauros was the general Greek term that referred to the apparatus regardless of its form, there is no justification for saying that the word necessarily referred to a simple stake in all the uses of the term in the Greek classics where the form of the device was not explicit. This is important because the vast majority of references to the stauros in the classics say nothing whatsoever about its form.

Also Parsons does not seem to be aware of Lucian, who is rightly counted among the "old Greek classics" and who most explicitly described the stauros as typically having a composite form. And the references to crucifixion in Josephus and Epictetus in the first century AD are not consistent with the view that stauros only referred to "a single piece of wood". One could also add the mentions of stauros-bearing in Chariton, Plutarch, Artemidorus and the NT.

It is noteworthy that this statement has a footnote with citations: "Thuc. iv. 90; Xen. An. v. 2, 21." Thucydides wrote in the fifth century BC and Xenophon in the fourth century BC. Both antedate the time when Plautus first attested the use of the patibulum in Roman crucifixion (third century BC). Thus these are hardly representative of the period when patibulum came into wide use.

"The stauros used as an instrument of execution was (1) a small pointed pole or stake used for thrusting through the body, so as to pin the latter to the earth, or otherwise render death inevitable; (2) a similar pole or stake fixed in the ground point upwards, upon which the condemned one was forced down till incapable of escaping; (3) a much longer and stouter pole or stake fixed point upwards, upon which the victim, with his hands tied behind him, was lodged in such a way that the point should enter his breast and the weight of the " body cause every movement to hasten the end; and (4) a stout unpointed pole or stake set upright in the earth, from which the victim was suspended by a rope round his wrists, which were first tied behind him so that the position might become an agonising one; or to which the doomed one was bound, or, as in the case of Jesus, nailed".

Nothing here about the patibulum.

"That this last named kind of stauros, which was admittedly that to which Jesus was affixed, had in every case a cross-bar attached, is untrue; that it had in most cases, is unlikely; that it had in the case of Jesus, is unproven".

"In every case"? That is an exaggerated claim that no one really maintains. Any work on crucifixion refers to the crux simplex alongside the other forms. "In most cases"? It is not so clear that this is unlikely as Parsons maintains; the evidence rather favors that the composite cross in the Imperial period was more common than the other forms. The figure of the composite cross is assumed to be typical by writers like Epictetus, Lucian, and Artemidorus. Plutarch's statement about "every criminal" bearing his stauros also suggests that the patibulum was very widely used. Seneca's frequent references to the use of the patibulum in crucifixion point to the same thing. "In the case of Jesus"? Most definitely unproven. But the preponderance of the evidence, especially with respect to the many references to stauros-bearing, points to the strong possibility.

"Even as late as the Middle Ages, the word stauros seems to have primarily signified a straight piece of wood without a cross-bar. For the famous Greek lexicographer, Suidas, expressly states, 'Stauroi; ortha xula perpégota', and both Eustathius and Hesychius affirm that it meant a straight stake or pole".

I don't have access to Byzantine works outside of what I can search on TLG, but I did look up Suda and the information presented here is incomplete. The entry (S1011) goes on to refer to "symbols of crosses" (staurón tupous) in Egyptian hierglyphics writings (hiergluphika grammata), which is certainly a reference to the Egyptian ankh. So Parsons is here flatly wrong in claiming that Suda's definition excludes the crossbeam (cf. also S1010 which is the entry on stauros itself and which refers to Constantine's cross). Crosses are wooden beams that stand straight regardless of whether they have crossbeams or not. I suspect that this applies to what Eustathius and Hesychus say as well.

The claim here is odd anyway since we have the neologism staurótos "cross-shaped" in the Byzantine period (not in the pre-Nicene period when crucifixion was still practiced).

The side light thrown upon the question by Lucian is also worth noting. This writer, referring to Jesus, alludes to "That sophist of theirs who was fastened to a skolops;" which word signified a single piece of wood, and not two pieces joined together.

Wow. So Parsons was not ignorant of Lucian after all? Lucian of course is the classical writer who, in two seperate works, depicted the stauros as including a crossbeam; he loomed large in Parsons' previous statement about stauros meaning only "stake" throughout the Greek classics. But now he appeals to Lucian to substantiate this very claim. If Lucian had used the noun skolops in De Morte Peregrii, this would have been rather interesting since skolops had a different meaning than stauros. While it was used to refer to a kind of crucifixion device, it never referred to the composite cross in any known text; it usually referred to a pointed stake, particularly one used in true impalement (with the wood passing through a person's body). But Lucian does not use the noun....he uses the verb anaskolopizó. Now in the early period it meant "to impale" as in Herodotus (cf. Historiae, 1.128, 3.159) but by the first century AD it became an interchangeable synonym with anastauroó. One can clearly see this interchangeability in Philo of Alexandria and Josephus. In De Morte Peregrii, Lucian uses anaskolopizó to refer to Jesus' crucifixion (twice, as anaskolopisthenta and aneskolopismenon, in 11.11 and 13.17). Parsons assumes that Lucian's use of anaskolopizó implies "a single piece of wood", but this is just an assumption and it is a demonstrably false one. What Parsons fails to realize is that Lucian elsewhere used anaskolopizó to explicitly refer to crucifixion on a composite cross, for he says that tyrants have taken Tau's body "as a model and imitating his shape have fashioned similar-looking timbers to crucify (anaskolopizein) men upon them and the vile device is even named after him," i.e. stauros (Lis Consonantium, 12). Since Lucian presents the T-shaped cross as the typical form of the stauros, it is more likely that he pictured Jesus' stauros in De Morte Peregrii as a composite cross than a simple stake.

"It should be noted, however, that these five references of the Bible to the execution of Jesus as having been carried out by his suspension upon either a tree or a piece of timber set in the ground, in no wise convey the impression that two pieces of wood nailed together in the form of a cross is what is referred to".

If it really were a tree, then obviously there had to have been a patibulum if Jesus carried anything to Golgotha. The word xulon "tree" however reflects the Jewish exegetical tradition of applying the law on postmortem display of dead bodies on trees in Deuteronomy 21:22-23 to Roman crucifixion, as can most clearly be seen in Galatians 3:13-14 which explicitly cites this scripture (cf. the similar use of Deuteronomy in reference to crucifixion in 11QT64:6-13, 4QpNah 3-4:1:1-11). The Romans also figuratively called the cross a "tree" (arbor infelix) and Seneca specifically applies this term to the composite cross. Barnabas also referred to the composite cross as a xulon "tree".

"Moreover, there is not, even in the Greek text of the Gospels, a single intimation in the Bible to the effect that the instrument actually used in the case of Jesus was cross-shaped".

Parsons does not realize that the description of cross-bearing in the gospels pertains to the well-attested Roman practice of making crucifixion victims bear their own patibulum to the execution site. All Greek sources outside of the NT that refer to the same practice use the word stauros; they do not use a term for patibulum for there was no equivalent in the language. One of these writers (namely, Artemidorus) even was explicit that such crucifixion involved the use of the composite cross. No Latin source, moreover, refers to victims bearing the stipes (stake) or the crux. This adds up to a pretty strong "intimation" that the instrument included a patibulum.

"Had there been any such intimation in the twenty-seven Greek works referring to Jesus, which our Church selected out of a very large number and called the 'New Testament', the Greek letter chi, which was cross-shaped, would in the ordinary course have been referred to; and some such term as Katà chiasmon, 'like a chi,' made use of".

The vast majority of references to crucifixion in ancient literature are not explicit about form; why presume that a writer "would have" compared the cross to a Chi had the instrument been a composite cross? And why Chi if Tau was closer to the actual common form? What is pretty amusing about this point is that one comparatively early book (Barnabas) included in the canon by some early authorities (such as Clement of Alexandria, Didymus Caecus, and the Codex Sinaiticus), in fact, DID compare Jesus' cross with the Greek letter Tau.

"The word anastauroo was never used by the old Greek writers as meaning other than to impale upon or with a single piece of timber".

No, it is an equivalent of stauroó and anaskolopizó, and the latter certainly was able to refer to crucifixion on composite crosses (as Lucian proves). Parsons here is making "a single piece of timber" an essential part of the word's denotation when it really was not.

"The word stauroó occurs, as has been said, forty-four times; and of the four words in question by far the most frequently. The meaning of this word is therefore of special importance. It is consequently most significant to find, as we do upon due investigation, that wherever it occurs in the pre-Christian classics it is used as meaning to impalisade, or stake, or affix to a pale or stake; and has reference, not to crosses, but to single pieces of wood".

Again Parsons artificially restricts the verb from having reference to composite crosses. Yet Epictetus used the verb to refer to crucified men who assume a stretched posture from one side to the other; this is hardly consistent with Parsons' stipulation that stauroó only referred to crucifixion on a "single piece of wood".

"The Fathers who wrote in Latin, used the word crux as a translation of the Greek word stauros. It is therefore noteworthy that even this Latin word 'crux,' from which we derive our words 'cross' and 'crucify,' did not in ancient days necessarily mean something cross-shaped, and seems to have had quite another signification as its original meaning".

Here Parsons fails to appreciate the difference between denotation and connotation. Shape was not part of the meaning of crux but the object that the word referred to was very often cross-shaped — at least insofar as it contained a patibulum. If anything was ever said that gave a clue about the instrument's appearance, it was the mention of the patibulum more than anything else. Parsons doesn't even mention that there was such a thing as a patibulum, or that the Romans had a special word for the crossbeam of a crux.

"A reference, for instance, to the writings of Livy, will show that in his time the word crux, whatever else it may have meant, signified a single piece of wood or timber; he using it in that sense".6

This is the source of the Society's repeated reference to Livy as using crux to mean "stake". No citations are ever given but I have examined every case of crux in Livy and none of them describe the appearance or construction of the crux in any way; there is nothing that says anything about the presence or absence of a crossbeam. But Parsons does give a footnote. So what citation do we have here? Footnote 6 cites "Livy, xxviii. 29". But crux is not used at all in this passage; the author is not talking about crucifixion but scourging and beheading: "Bound to a stake(deligati ad palum) they were scourged and beheaded" (28.29.11). This is no more a crucifixion than burning someone at a stake. I don't know where Parsons got the mistaken idea that Livy was using the word crux here; the word crux does appear in 28.37, but this relates an altogether different event sometime later by a separate individual (the Carthaginian general Mago, whereas 28.29 concerned the Roman general Scipio). So this looks like a mistake made by Parsons that was picked up by the WTS and repeated ad nauseum.

Jesus not crucified on torture stake. Impossible!

rebel8

rebel8

Colton

mrsjones5

Leolaia

quietlyleaving

Colton

tenyearsafter

shamus100

isaacaustin

Share this