The "patibulum" : a fragile theory !

TheFrench

The Latin Fathers of the Church has NEVER described Jesus carrying a "patibulum". Indeed, the early Christians to represent Jesus carrying the "crux", not the "patibulum". It's a fact.

TheFrench, really?

'Cause I've aslo studied this question, but from another angle. Namely, I tried to find any so called Old Latin translation (which were made before Vulgata and some of them even before the practice of crucifixion was abandoned) with patibullum, but everywhere there was 'crux'... So it seems to me that your point is not groundless. But can you cite any source to support this fact?

Also, I found out, that when koine-speaking authors were referring to patibulum they used 'xulon', not 'stauros' (particulary because the very root of the word stauros means 'stay'; 'stay' and 'stauros' share the same Proto-Indo-European root 'sta-' and have nothing to do with horizontal bar, but with something vertically staying). For instance: Plutarch, Coriolanus 24.4-5.

TheFrench

' Cause I've studied this question ALSO , From Another goal angle. Namely , I Tried to find any So Called Old Latin translation ( Which Were Made Before Vulgata and Some Of Them Even Before the practice of crucifixion Abandoned WAS ) with patibullum , drank everywhere There Was ' crux ' ... So It Seems to Me That IS your point not groundless . Any order can you cite sources to support this Fact ?
For example, before the Vulgate, Tertullian quotes the Gospels. Each time he reported the invitation of Jesus to carry the " stauros" , it translates "stauros" with " crux " , not " patibulum " . Even more surprising , when Tertullian describes the cross, he uses the Latin word " antenna" , not " patibulum " .

Also, I found out , that ' When koine -speaking authors referring to patibulum Were THEY used' xulon ', not' stauros ' ( particulary Because the very root of the word stauros Means ' stay ' , ' stay 'and' stauros ' share the Sami Proto -Indo -European root ' sta - ' and Have Nothing to do with horizontal bar, order staying with Something Vertically ). For instance : Plutarch , Coriolanus 24.4-5 .
Absolutely!

Doug Mason

I am interested to know which was the earliest NT writing (chronologically speaking) that describes the trial, persecution and description of Jesus' death, when was it written, and by whom?

Paul was the first writer, and we know which of the writings were actually written by him. He died in the early 60s and the other writers came after him.

So who first described these events? How did they know what happened if they had run away? How did they know what happened during the trial? How do they know what Pilate's wife said? Were any of the eye witnesses still alive when the story of Jesus' last days were written down?

Doug

Band on the Run

Mark is the earliest canonical gospel writer. He isn't that far from Paul.

Does it matter whether the cross was a cross? The Witnesses place great emphaisis on this Bible knowledge. The good news is Christ died. Christ was buried. Christ is Risen, Christ will come again.

Paul emphasize the folly of the cross. I believe it is 1 Corinthians. It is a very famous passage. I wrote a meditation on it. Discovering what Koine Greek word Paul used should help solve the argument.

The WT thinks Bible trivia winners know the Bible. I submit trivia is a ridiculous measure. These books were written to preserve theological truths. Each addresses its own audience. Events are clearly slanted to appeal to the audience. I could quote all of Paul's various dicta on doing this or doing that. Yet I never heard his gospel of grace or the folly of the cross as a Witness. First things first. After I've learned the main things, then I can worry about whether Jesus had a beard or not or whether the Virgin Mary wore Virgin Mary blue at the crucifixion and incarnation.

Doug Mason

Hi Band on the Run,

Are you saying that Mark (the first writer after Paul) was the first to provide a description of those events?

Have you been able to reconcile the differences in detail between the various Gispel accounts of Jesus' fate?

Doug

Knowsnothing

I think the "crux" of the matter (pun intended) is that the Watchtower misrepresents the cross in many ways.

Watchtower asserts:

1.) It is of pagan origin, therefore any usage it receives is pagan as well (the same argument used to sully holidays, birthdays, etc.)

2.) Romans did not come to use it until many decades after Christ's death, thereby discarding the possibility he was executed on one, even though secular history records the usage of crosses B.C.

3.) The cross will be used in an idolatrous matter (with this point I highly disagree, because even Russel used it, yet didn't worship it. Also, I see it simply as a way of representing what you believe, much like the Jews wore special clothes to identify them).

So, regardless of whether the Watchtower "got it right" or not, is of little consequence. It is its imposition of prohibition against the cross and its flawed representation that stirs the pot.

TheFrench

I think the "crux" of the matter (pun intended) is that the Watchtower misrepresents the cross in many ways.

Watchtower asserts:

1.) It is of pagan origin, therefore any usage it receives is pagan as well (the same argument used to sully holidays, birthdays, etc.)

No, it's exagerated. But it's true that the symbol of cross was the most commun in the past and, now, today.

2.) Romans did not come to use it until many decades after Christ's death, thereby discarding the possibility he was executed on one, even though secular history records the usage of crosses B.C.

You should say the first descriptions (stauros->cross) were dated second century, not before. It's a fact. Yet Jesus died in the early first century.

3.) The cross will be used in an idolatrous matter (with this point I highly disagree, because even Russel used it, yet didn't worship it. Also, I see it simply as a way of representing what you believe, much like the Jews wore special clothes to identify them).

This argument is feeble. No comment.

Knowsnothing

"There are also inanimate objects that if venerated may lead to breaking God's commandments. Among the most prominent is the cross. For centuries it has been used by people in Christendom as part of their worship. Soon God will execute his judgments against all false religions. Those who cling to them will suffer their fate." Watchtower 1989 May 1 p.23

For my second point, I am not speak about the stauros being identified as a cross. I am saying that Romans used the cross as a form of execution even before Christ's birth. What I am not asserting, is the usage stauros is given.

Therefore, if the cross existed as a method of execution before Christ's birth, and Christ was executed by the Romans, then it is entirely possible he was executed on one.

There are many pre-Christian references that indicate the cross was being used prior to the time of Jesus. These references show that it was a common practice for the victim to carry to crossbeam, or patibulum to their execution. In the first century B.C. Dionysius of Halicarnassus described the practice of tying the patibulum across the victims back:

"A Roman citizen of no obscure station, having ordered one of his slaves to be put to death, delivered him to his fellow-slaves to be led away, and in order that his punishment might be witnessed by all, directed them to drag him through the Forum and every other conspicuous part of the city as they whipped him, and that he should go ahead of the procession which the Romans were at the time conducting in honour of the god. The men ordered to lead the slave to his punishment, having stretched out both hands and fastened them to a piece of wood (tas kheiras apoteinantes amphoteras kai xuló prosdésantes) which extended across his chest and shoulders as far as his wrists, followed him, tearing his naked body with whips" (Roman Antiquities, 7.69.1-2)."

As for your Church Father argument:

Justin Martyr was born at the time John is said to have written the account of Jesus death and wrote his apologies around 155 A.D. His descriptions of the death of Jesus identify that a cross was used. It shows that the cross was not introduced to Christianity 300 years after Jesus death by Constantine, but was already used as early as the second century. In Second Apology, chapter VI he talks of "? Jesus Christ, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate." In Chapter XL he goes on to liken Jesus to the sacrificial lamb of the Passover.

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."

For further information, please visit this website. Jwfacts

TheFrench

"There are also inanimate objects that if venerated may lead to breaking God's commandments. Among the most prominent is the cross. For centuries it has been used by people in Christendom as part of their worship. Soon God will execute his judgments against all false religions. Those who cling to them will suffer their fate." Watchtower 1989 May 1 p.23

You should have put "(...)" between these sentences : "For centuries... worship." and "Soon God... religions.". Indeed, between both sentences, the author of this article explains at lenght why Christians who practice idolatry and participate in the war, will be rejected by God. He don't speak only about the cross.

For my second point, I am not speak about the stauros being identified as a cross. I am saying that Romans used the cross as a form of execution even before Christ's birth. What I am not asserting, is the usage stauros is given.

Do you have some proof at least what you are saying ?

Therefore, if the cross existed as a method of execution before Christ's birth, and Christ was executed by the Romans, then it is entirely possible he was executed on one.

But, there is no proof. So, not possibility.

There are many pre-Christian references that indicate the cross was being used prior to the time of Jesus. These references show that it was a common practice for the victim to carry to crossbeam, or patibulum to their execution. In the first century B.C. Dionysius of Halicarnassus described the practice of tying the patibulum across the victims back:

No, it's still wrong.

"A Roman citizen of no obscure station, having ordered one of his slaves to be put to death, delivered him to his fellow-slaves to be led away, and in order that his punishment might be witnessed by all, directed them to drag him through the Forum and every other conspicuous part of the city as they whipped him, and that he should go ahead of the procession which the Romans were at the time conducting in honour of the god. The men ordered to lead the slave to his punishment, having stretched out both hands and fastened them to a piece of wood (tas kheiras apoteinantes amphoteras kai xuló prosdésantes) which extended across his chest and shoulders as far as his wrists, followed him, tearing his naked body with whips" (Roman Antiquities, 7.69.1-2)."

Yes, several Greek and Latin authors tell this story but none of them explicitly mentions the crucifixion or the cross. Yet it is precisely on the basis of this story that many believe that the crucifixion (with a cross) was performed in the first century. So, it's unfounded.

As for your Church Father argument:

Justin Martyr was born at the time John is said to have written the account of Jesus death and wrote his apologies around 155 A.D. His descriptions of the death of Jesus identify that a cross was used. It shows that the cross was not introduced to Christianity 300 years after Jesus death by Constantine, but was already used as early as the second century. In Second Apology, chapter VI he talks of "? Jesus Christ, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate." In Chapter XL he goes on to liken Jesus to the sacrificial lamb of the Passover.

Of corse, but 1) the second century is not the first century... and 2) apologists like him are not infallible.

The "patibulum" : a fragile theory !

TheFrench

Wokl

TheFrench

Doug Mason

Band on the Run

Doug Mason

Knowsnothing

TheFrench

Knowsnothing

TheFrench

Share this