BTW - does anybody else except myself suspect that we have been "torture stake TROLLED"?
The "patibulum" : a fragile theory !
by TheFrench 112 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
EdLouisiana
BTW - what I meant by "Nobody was there" meant that nobody who was credibly there left a believable record about what form the cross was made.
BTW2 - none of these cave paintings were portrayals of the cruxifiction, thus they are a non-sequiter.
BTW - does anybody else except myself suspect that we have been "torture stake TROLLED?"
Now that you're talking about the cross, you are exactly right. The gospels are FICTION.
The "cave" paintings aren't supposed to be a portrayal of the crucifixion. They only show part of what the Carthaginians reportedly did to one of their generals, or to Regulus. The crucifixion wouldn't be for another 300 years, almost.
No, you haven't been "torture stake trolled." "Torture CROSS trolled," perhaps!
My posts have links. People can persure them at their own leisure. What I posted about Roman crucifixion shows what the Romans did to people, at least sometimes, and does not necessarily reflect on the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. Luke/Acts says he was crucified by the Jews! So you know how bad those gospel fictions are. Now where did I get information that the Romans used five-pointed crosses aside from the previously posted epigraphs?
From the following explicit descriptions of the architecture of a type of crucifixion frame structure or of how crucifxion was done on it.
- Seneca: Epistulae Morales 101.10-14; De ira 1.2.2
- Irenaeus, Adversus haereses 2.24.4
- Justin Martyr, Dialogus cum Tryphone 91
- Tertullian, Ad nationes 1.18.10, 1.12.3-4; Apud iudaeos 10.2-3, Adversus Marcionem 3.18.3-4
Other writers using unexpected terms or term combinations for cross and crucify (and this is not exhaustive):
- Lucian, De morte Peregrini 11, 13; Iudicium vocalum 12 (use of stauros for cross and anaskolopizw for crucify. His last reference says the stauros was T-shaped.)
- Origen, Contra Celsum 2.55, 2.58, 2.69, 3.32, 3.36 (Quotes Celsus' use of skolopos - thorn - for cross and anaskolopizw - fix on a pole, impale - for crucify)
- Philo Judaeus, In Flaccum 72, 83-85 (use of stauros for cross and anaskolopizw for crucify)
Now these may or may not reflect on the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, even though Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Origen and Tertullian thought so, because they postdate him. But they do show how the Romans suspended people, at least sometimes.
-
TheFrench
The next (for Leolaia) :
Furthermore, if the patibulum did come to stand in for the term crux as I have argued above, then it would have to have been used in the course of crucifixion. This would explain why the patibulum was so frequently mentioned in connection with crucifixion. In the case of Plautus, we have three explicit references to patibulum-bearing. So in the passage from Miles Gloriosus, 359 quoted above, the slave Sceledrus is threatened while blocking access to a room with outstretched arms: "I believe you'll be walking (eundum) out of the city gate (ex portam) in that pose very soon, hands spread out as you carry (habebis) the patibulum". Here the outstretched pose is one Sceledrus would have while walking and carrying the patibulum on the way to his execution. The phrase ex portam especially raises the spectre of exeuction because the ancient Roman custom was to conduct executions outside the Esquiline Gate (Tacitus, Annales 2.32), and it was where bodies would be left to be consumed by vultures and wolves (Horace, Epodes 5.97-102). Elsewhere Plautus used the phrase ex portam with similar effect: "It's true, he'll see you dead, burning outside the gate (videre ardentem te extra portam mortuam)" (Casina 2.6). Moreover, Sceledrus connects this threat to crucifixion when he responds after a second threat: "Stop threatening me, I know that the cross will be my tomb (scio crucem futuram mihi sepulcrum). It where all my ancestors met their ends: my father, my grandfather, my great-grandfather, my great-great-grandfather. My eyes cannot be torn out by any more threats of yours" (Miles Gloriosus, 372-375). Thus within the story, the character threatened with patibulum-bearing understood it as pertaining to crucifixion. And just before this scene, immediately before the entrance of the character who would threaten him with patibulum punishment, Sceledrus stated his fear that his master would "put me up on the cross (sustollat in crucem)" (line 309). So it is clear here that patibulum-bearing is connected with crucifixion. The second reference to patibulum-bearing in Plautus can be found in Mostellaria, where the jealous slave Grumio threatens his rival Tranio: "Oh sieve of the executioners (carnuficium cribrum), I believe they will pierce you with goads through the streets (per vias) with you attached to a patibulum (patibulatum), as soon as the old man returns" (Mostellaria, 55-57). The reference to executioners indicates that capital punishment is in view here. Then in line 352, Tranio announces the return of his master Theopropides (the old man referred to by Grumio) and he is sure that he is doomed to execution, just as predicted by Grumio (erus advenit peregre, periit Tranio). Then he offers money to anyone at the party willing to take his place: "I'll give a talent to that man who shall be the first to run to the cross (in crucem excucurrerit) for me but on the condition that his arms and legs are double-nailed (offigantur bis pedes bis brachia)" (lines 359-360). The context thus relates Tranio's expected carrying of a patibulum through the streets with Tranio's expected hastening forwards (excurrere) to the crux where his arms and legs would be nailed. And then at that end of the play, Theopropides himself declares that Tranio would be crucified: "I'll have you carried to the cross (ego ferare faxo in crucem), as you deserve" (line 1133). All of this shows that Grumio's reference to patibulum-bearing pertains to crucifixion. The third reference is in the play Carbonaria (Fragmenta, 2): "Let him carry his patibulum through the city (patibulum ferat per urbem), and then be fastened to the cross (deinde adfigatur cruci)". This makes explicit what was implicit in the other two passages; patibulum-bearing for the punished slave ends with crucifixion. The historian Licinius (first century BC) also made a similar comment: "Bound to patibula they are led around (deligati ad patibulos circumferuntur) and they are fastened to the cross (et cruci defigntur)" (Historiae Romanae, 21). If these people are fastened to the cross while still bound to patibula, then this implies the addition of the patibula to the cross; there is no mention here of their removal. Since Plautus describes patibulum-bearing as involving a pose of hands spread out to the side, the addition of the patibulum to the cross would produce the same pose on the cross itself, which is precisely the kind of pose described in crucifixion on a stauros or crux by Seneca, Lucian, Tertullian, and others.Mostellaria 55-57.
1) The carnifex ("executioner") serves to torture. Torture conducted by the carnifex does not systematically lead to death. J. C. Dumont, for example, explains that a carnifex and his aides were necessary in a simple setting to the question, quaestio per tormenta - Libitina, Undertakers and torture in Campania at the time of Augustus, p. 90
2) In the context Tranion insult Grumion by mean this word : "furcifer" (69). Grumion retorts: "By Jove, here's a name, I believe, soon to be yours" (70). This phrase echoes the threat that the farmer formula lines 55-57. Thus, "patibulum" means here the sense of "furca" as an insult, "furcifer" (lit. "one who bears the furca") is awarded to any slave who suffers the torment of the furca.
In his works, Plautus employs patibulum and furca in the same sens. Because :
1) as patibulum, the furca is carried by slaves : "patibulum ferat"/"furcam feras" - Cabonaria, fr. II ; Casina, II, 6
2) the slave's arms are stretched out on the patibulum : "dispessis manibus", Miles Gloriosus, II, 4. It's the same thing with furca : "Those who led this slave to torment him with both arms extended [χε?ρας ?ποτε?ναντες] with a piece of wood." - Denis of Halicarnassus, Roman Antiquities, Book VII, 69
3) The prisoner is led through the city "per urbem"/"in urbem" - Cabonaria, fr. II ; Casina, II, 7
4) On the piece of wood, the victim is beaten : "forabunt stimulis"/"caesum virgis" - Mostellaria, I, 1 ; Menaechmi, V, 5
4) The punishment sometimes before the crux. - Cabonaria, fr. II ; Persa, V, 5
5) but not always. - Mostellaria, I, 1 ; Menaechmi, V, 5
6) Anyone who suffers this punishment is called "furcifer". - Mostellaria, I, 1 ; Plutarch, Roman Questions, 280 -
TheFrench
The Lex Puteoli Inscription (first century BC) is somewhat ambiguous because it is unclear whether it describes patibulum-bearing or workers bringing patibula to the execution site: "Whoever will want to exact punishment on a male slave or female slave at private expense, as he who wants the punishment to be inflected, he exacts the punishment in this manner: If he wants to bring the patibulum to the cross (in crucem patibul[um] agere), the contractor will have to provide wooden beams (asseres), chains, and cords for the floggers and the floggers themselves. And anyone who will want to exact punishment will have to give four sesterces for each of the workers who bring the patibulum (patibul[um] ferunt) and for the floggers and also for the executioner. Whenever a magistrate exacts punishment at public expense, so shall he decree; and whenever it will have been ordered to be ready to carry out the punishment, the contractor will have gratis to set up crosses (cruces statuere), and will have gratis to provide nails, pitch, wax, candles, and those things which are essential for such matters" (II.8-12). As you point out, this may simply be a matter of workers bringing the patibulum along with other materials to set up the execution apparatus, in which case it wouldn't refer to patibulum-bearing. Even if this is the case, this is still a matter of the patibulum being brought to the crux, which is itself set up (statuere) at the execution site, so it is clear here that patibulum is not synonymous with crux. But John Cook (NT, 2008) makes a pretty convincing case that the inscription refers to patibulum-bearing by the victim. The verb agere, which is loosely translated "bring" by Cook, has more of a sense of "impel, push", which is intelligible in the case of forced patibulum-bearing involving floggers (indeed, it is the usual word for referring to the driving of animals under a harness or yoke). The floggers may thus have been the workers who move or impel the patibulum to the cross by flogging the slave carrying it. Since patibul[um] is incomplete in the text, it is also possible that the word was patibulatum and the sense is "If he wants to impel the person attached to the patibulum to the cross". The phrase in crucem agere, in fact, occurs elsewhere, where it pertains to the person condemned to the cross: "You dared to lead someone off to the cross (in crucem tu agere ausus es)" (Cicero, In Verram 2.5.163), "He was led off to the cross (in crucem ageretur)" (Cicero, In Verram 2.5.165), "The student is led off to the cross (agitur paedagogus in crucem)" (Calpurnius Flaccus, Declamationum 23), "A prostitute leads off to the cross her slave who is in love with her (meretrix servum suum amantem se in crucem agit)" (Calpurnius Flaccus, Declamationum 33), etc.
In this inscription, the term "crucem patibulum" is an asyndetic group, ordinary construction in epigraphy, which "peut sembler faire difficulté" (may seem to challenge) as indicated by F. Hinard and J. C. Dumont (supra, p. 117) in their book.
In their translation, they are choosing to introduce into this expression the conjunction "and" translating the phrase "si in cruc(em) patibul(...) agere uolet" by "s'il commande une exécution par la croix et le patibulum" (if command execution by the cross and patibulum). Two instruments are associated here, sending each to a punishment.
Translators J. F. Gardiner and T. Wiedemann introduce, for their part, the conjunction "or" and translate the passage thus: "If he wants to put the slave on the cross or fork". Here, the master can choose between two instruments, two possible punishments (crux or patibulum). Although the meaning of the phrase is different, even opposite, neither is an incorrect translation, the asyndetic group requires, indeed, restore a conjunction to make the text clearer.
G. Cook gives yet another translation: "If he wants to bring the patibulum to the cross". His translation draws attention to the fact "to bring the patibulum to the cross". Cook goes beyond the Latin text. He is in the interpretation. Hinard et Dumont see in this passage as a possible reference to this custom, going beyond their translation of the Lex Puteoli, but they are openly attempting to interpret the text. If this translation of Cook may agree with the context close, without much difficulty, it does not argue for the belief that the wearing of "patibulum" is a systematic prior to the crucifixion. Why?
The Lex Puteoli concerns the situation where a master wants to torment his slave: "Whoever Will want to exact punishment (" supplic(ium) ") were male slave or female slave at private Expense". Lines 8 and 12 show that the punishment is the crux.
The text specifies the procedure: "as he who wants the punishment to be inflected, he exacts the punishment in this manner (ita) : If he wants to bring the patibulum to the cross". The conjunction "if" (lat. si) suggests the possibility. However, the entire text does not appear that to use a "crux" as a possibility: "the contractor will have gratis to set up crosses". Perhaps only the "patibulum" is optional. It is, moreover, suggest the sentence Cook: "If he wants to bring the patibulum..."
This law regulates the tortures in two settings: private and public. Note that the execution is carried out as public is clearly on a crux without any mention of patibulum, unlike the execution is carried out in private: "Whenever a magistrate exacts punishment at public expense, so shall he decree; and whenever it will have been ordered to be ready to carry out the punishment, the contractor will have gratis to set up crosses, and will have gratis to provide nails, pitch, wax, candles, and those things which are essential for such matters".
It may also question whether two different punishments (see supplies each time).
-
TheFrench
To EdLouisiana : where do you see a cross?
-
Christ Alone
People like James Woods will say "No one was there" but at the same time have no issue in believing in other parts of history and science. Archeology has found remnants of crosses used to by the Romans to kill Christians. The proof is there. They have found carvings and other images carved into the catacomb walls that prove that early Christians believed that Jesus was killed on a cross.
Beyond that, I don't think James Woods would have a problem arguing the facts of early humans that painted pictures of nature inside caves. He wouldn't say "No one was there". It's a type of mental block that was common while he was a JW, and it is a mental block that many atheists put up now.
That being said, I do understand that I have certain "mental blocks" that I put up too when it comes to atheism. It's a double edged sword. My mental block is called faith. I'm not sure what an atheist would call it. Or what they would call their own. And to try and argue that you (as in everyone) don't have one would be a lie.
-
EdLouisiana
@ TheFrench,
It is not in the photo that you copied that one can see a cross. It is in the close-up of the subject's left forearm, which I posted previously, that one can see a transverse lifting beam and the ligatures binding his wrists to it. You have to admit, though, that the man's legs are hanging freely. I suspect it is a preliminary stage of a Carthaginian "crucifixion" that did not use a cross, but rather, a suspension beam between two posts with an impaling stake in between.
The Carthaginians had a verb for bodily suspension in common with the Arabic, modern Hebrew, the Christian Palestinian Aramaic, the Mandaiac, and the Syriac: s-l-b (the "s" is pronounced "tz" like in tsar / czar). David W. Chapman in his book Ancient Jewish and Christian Perspectives of Crucifixion (pp. 14 - 26) cited others' reports that the Carthaginian s-l-b could possibly have meant "to impale on a razor" and "to impale." (p. 16, n. 14) But he also noted that the others expressed a great deal of uncertainty on this. Preview PDF Link.
Chapman doesn't cover the Arabic s-l-b but a discussion about that can be found here.
-
EdLouisiana
@Christ Alone,
I don't know what other remnants archaeologists dug up, but I am familiar with the epigraphy Giv'at ha-Mitvar find, where the nail the Romans used to transfix Yehochanan's left heelbone was still embeded therein.
-
TheFrench
It is not in the photo that you copied that one can see a cross. It is in the close-up of the subject's left forearm, which I posted previously, that one can see a transverse lifting beam and the ligatures binding his wrists to it. You have to admit, though, that the man's legs are hanging freely. I suspect it is a preliminary stage of a Carthaginian "crucifixion" that did not use a cross, but rather, a suspension beam between two posts with an impaling stake in between.
But I don't understand why you show this representation. What is the link with my topic? Is it a proof in support of the Jesus'cross?
The Carthaginians had a verb for bodily suspension in common with the Arabic, modern Hebrew, the Christian Palestinian Aramaic, the Mandaiac, and the Syriac: s-l-b (the "s" is pronounced "tz" like in tsar / czar). David W. Chapman in his book Ancient Jewish and Christian Perspectives of Crucifixion (pp. 14 - 26) cited others' reports that the Carthaginian s-l-b could possibly have meant "to impale on a razor" and "to impale." (p. 16, n. 14) But he also noted that the others expressed a great deal of uncertainty on this. Preview PDF Link.
Chapman doesn't cover the Arabic s-l-b but a discussion about that can be found here.
Yes, the thesis of Chapman is interesting. For instance, Chapman deals of the various interpretations of Dt 21:22,23. And do you know what he explains about it ? Thanks to Talmud of Babylon, we know how the Jews executed this law at the time of Jesus. The sinner was hanged on a trunk, his hands bound together, above the head... Strangely, Jews have seen the application of this law in the execution of Jesus (for the jew vision, see Acts, Galatians, Talmud).
-
EdLouisiana
"SI IN CRUC PATIB AGERE VOLET" -- Lex Puteoli
I admit, it is a difficult walnut to crack, even though the interpretation of "CRUC" is obvious: "crucem.*" "PATIB" on the other hand, could be interpreted as "patibulum" (noun - direct object - accusative case), "patibulo" (noun - indirect object or instrument - dative or ablative case), "patibulatum" (adjective direct object - accusative case, singular). I myself am partial to "patibulo" and "patibulatum" because to me, the interpretation would make sense in light of the rest of the punishment in lines 8-12. So, then, we would have the options:
si in crucem patibulo agere volet = if he wishes to impel [the slave] onto the crux on / from / with a patibulum.
si in crucem patibulatum agere volet = if he wishes to impel the patibulated (yoked) [slave] to / onto the crux.
In each case it involves assuming that the slave is intended as the direct object.
Bringing the patibulum to the place of execution, on the other hand, appears to be using an incorrect verb -- in the Lewis and Short entry "ago", it appears a better choice of a verb would have been "ferre." (Lewis & Short "ago", I. Lit., C.) Plus, it is inconsistent with the later requirements that the client pay for the floggers and the scourges not to mention the blokes ferrying the patibulum, and the patibulum itself. So, yes, Cook is interpreting beyond the text.
Then there is the use of the preposition "in" used with the accusative. "Agere" is a verb of motion, but it is also a verb of a different kind of forcing, i.e., penetration. (See Augustan Histories, Elagabulus 5.1 -- less rude examples of forcing or penetration can be found in the above L&S entry "ago".) Using it with "in" therefore would be a pregnant construction, "i.e., to bring into... and place there." (See Lewis & Short entry, "in", II. with acc., A) If it was meant as impel to the site of execution only, I think "ad crucem" would be a better choice of words because that means with the accusative a sense of approach. (See Lewis & Short entry "ad", I, A, (a)) Therefore I interpret "in crucem agere" as impel to the object of execution, and force the condemned onto it.
Plus, I have found an appalling number of cases where the Greek verb anaskolopizow (impale, fix on a pole) and anastaurow (impale, suspend on a pole, crucify) have been translated into the Latin as "in crucem agere" by Byzantine, Medieval, Renaissance, Baroque and Enlightenment scholars. But they have precedence from some of the writers of antiquity. That I'll leave for another day.
Needless to say, it is clear from Lex Puteoli that at the time of inscribing "crux" and "patibulum" were two different things, use of the patibulum was optional (si... volet), and the slave was impelled onto a "crux" until his final contact with it.
* Okay, it could also be translated "cruce" which would mean "in cruce agere" = to force on/with a crux but in all the ancient writings I have translated for myself the number of incidences of "in cruce agere" I have found are exactly ZERO - none!