The earliest extant Latin father is Tertullian and he used the term patibulum three times with reference to Jesus (Ad Nationes 1.12, Adversus Marcionem 4.42.5, 4.42.7). He wrote that if Marcion were correct and Jesus was only a spirit being "nothing remained on the timber (nihil remansit in ligno), after he gave up his spirit nothing was hanging there, nothing was begged for from Pilate, nothing was taken down from the patibulum (nihil de patibulo detractum), nothing was wrapped in linen, nothing was laid in a new sepulchre" (Adversus Marcionem 4.42.7). Elsewhere he was specific that although a cross did not have to include a patibulum to be considered a cross, Christians recognized the form including a patibulum as specifically the cross of Christ: "Any piece of wood planted upright in the ground is part of a cross and indeed the larger part of a cross. But we Christians are credited with an entire cross complete with a transverse beam and a projecting seat (tota crux imputatur, cum antemna scilicet sua et cum illo sedilis excessu)" (Ad Nationes 1.12). He did not describe Jesus's carrying of the cross, but he did use the word patibulum with reference to it, and he certainly pictured a cross with a transverse beam (antemna, the transverse beam in the mast of a ship being another term for it).
Of course, but in this case, Tertullian can use "patibulum" in the sense of "crux". You prove yourself, when Tertullian refers to the crossbeam, unambiguous, the author uses the Latin word "antenna", not "patibulum". The problem is there. None of the first Latin texts does not refer to the crossbeam by "patibulum". But with "crux", always, at least until the fifth century (where you have a single reference!).
Another ante-Nicene Latin father was Lactantius who similarly used the word patibulum in describing Jesus' crucifixion: "Thus his unbroken body was taken down from the patibulum (sic integrum corpus patibulo detractum), and carefully enclosed in a tomb....Since he who is suspended upon a patibulum (qui patibulo suspenditur) is both conspicuous to all and higher than others, the cross was especially chosen (crux potius electa est), which might signify that he would be so conspicuous and so raised on high " (Divinae Institutiones 4.26).
In this text, it is likely that "patibulo" is used in the sense of "crux". "His unbroken body" can be rendered by "his whole body." Indeed, it is from the cross, not just the crossbeam, that his "whole" (integrum) body was detached.
As for the claim that no Latin father ever described Jesus as carrying the patibulum, this is simply false. Ambrose for instance gave a sermon comparing the crucifixion to Abraham's binding of Isaac, and stated: "Isaac carried the wood to him [his father], Christ himself bore the patibulum of the cross (ligna Isaac sibi vexit, Christus sibi patibulum portavit crucis)" (De Abraham 1.8).
You finally managed to find a text, one text, which dates from the IV-V century. It's light. Indeed, do ambrose he employs "patibulum" in the sense of "crux"? B ecause at that time, we have representations (sarcophagi, etc.) of Jesus carrying a complete cross, not the "patibulum". Therefore, for me, no doubt that IV-V century, all Christians (including Ambrose) believed that Jesus carried a cross, not just the crossbeam.
If we're talking still about the Latin fathers, the earliest Latin father Tertullian used the term patibulum in reference to Jesus' cross even if he did not describe the carrying of the cross per se. The Greek fathers are earlier, but of course the word patibulum would not have been used since that is a Latin word, not Greek. Instead the Greeks simply used the word stauros to refer to the cross in whole, or in part. This thus was the term used to refer to the carrying of the cross to the execution site (Chariton, Chaereas and Callirhoe 4.2.6-7, Plutarch, De Sera Numinus Vindicta 554A, Mark 15:31, Matthew 10:38, 16:24, 27:32, Luke 23:26, Artemidorus Daldianus, Oneirocritica 2.56), even in the case of two-beamed crosses (as is in the case of Artemidorus, who specifically described the shape of the stauros as like the mast of a ship). The Greek fathers consistently described Jesus' stauros as two-beamed or T-shaped, from anonymous homily traditionally assigned to Barnabas in the apostolic fathers (Barnabas 9:7-8, 12:1-5), to Justin Martyr (1 Apology 35, 55, 60, Dialogue 90-91). Justin Martyr, for instance, described how the stauros is put together with two pieces of wood, an upright and a transverse beam (Dialogue 91), he compared the shape of the stauros with a ship's mast (1 Apology 55), and yet he used this same word to refer to what Jesus carried: "...the cross which when crucified he took upon his shoulders (tou staurou hò prosethèke tous òmous stauròtheis)" (1 Apology 35).
No need to give these texts as a reference. they are imprecise. Moreover, when the authors speak about carrying stauros as Artemidorus, we do not know if they refer to a cross or a pole, for these instruments, both alike, were used in the crucifixion (broadly defined), I remind you...
Well that's obviously because crux was the term that generally translated Greek stauros (when it referred to an apparatus for execution) across the board. Patibulum was in comparison a much rarer, specialized term.
Easy. So why the first representations of the Passion depicts Jesus carrying a cross, not a crossbar?
As I showed above, he used both terms. The term antemna draws on a metaphorical comparison between the cross and the mast of a ship, the same comparison found earlier in Ardemidorus and Justin Martyr.
Not only. "Antenna" is not always used in a metaphor. For Tertullian, it seems to have been a technical term for the horizontal beam of the cross. : Every piece of timber fixed in Which is ground in the erect position year IS a part of a cross, and the Greater Indeed portion of mass STI. Entire year goal IS Attributed to cross us, icts with transverse beam (antemna), of course, and Its Projecting seat. - Tertullian, Ad Nations, I, 12.
That story did not concern crucifixion. It concerned a pre-Republican method of slave humiliation that was likely ancestral to the later Roman practice of crucifixion. Rather we know that the patibulum was used in crucifixion in the first century AD and before because writers said so: "Let him carry his patibulum throughout the city and then let him be fastened to the crux (Plautus, Carbonaria, fr. 2; written in the third century BC),
Plautus uses "patibulum" and "furca" interchangeably and texts show that this punishment does not necessarily lead to death. In his book, The Lives of the Twelve Caesars, Suetonius described the punishment and he does not speak of the crucifixion (Nero, 49)! In addition, Plautus describes the punishment that looks exactly like the punishment you call "a method of pre-Republican slave humiliation". In fact, it's the punischment mentioned by Suetonius because the "patibulum" is the same piece of wood that the "furca". In this passage of Plautus, where is the link between "patibulum" and the "crux"? Could it be they two separate punishments, a combination of different punishments as this can be done at the time?
"They are tied to patibula and led around, and nailed to the crux" (Clodius Licinus, Historia, fr. 3; written in the first century BC),
Idem
"If he wants [him] to bring the patibulum to the crux, the contractor will have to provide wooden posts, chains, and cords for the floggers and the floggers themselves" (Lex Puteoli Inscription, II.8-9; first century BC),
But in this entire text, the "patibulum" may be carried by the workers (more workers!). Why the "patibulum" is provided by several workers? The patibulum is so heavy?
And I'd like to know if there is a new translation. Then, a re you sure that the sentence translates as "If wants [him] the patibulum to the crux" ? What says the original text ?
"Yonder I see cruces, not indeed of a single kind but differently contrived by different peoples: some hang their victims upside down, some impale their private parts, others stretch out their arms on a patibulum" (Seneca, De Consolatione, 20.3; written in the first century AD),
Sometimes, Seneca uses " stipes ", " crux " and " patibulum " interchangeably . In this text , it can use " patibulum " in the sense of " stipes ", as he does it elsewhere . " stretch out t heir arms " : Of course, we can 'extend his arms' on a cross (horizontally) but you can too do it on a pole (vertically). This passage is not explicit.
"Though they strive to release themselves from their cruces, those cruces to which each one of you nails himself with his own hand ... did not some of them spit upon spectators from their own patibulum?" (Seneca, De Vita Beata, 19.3; written in the first century AD),
In this context, Seneca uses "crux" and "stipes" (precisely "stipitibus") interchangeably. Therefore, Seneca thinks a stake, not a cross.
"You may nail me up and set my seat upon the piercing crux. Is it worthwhile to weigh down upon one's own wound and hang impaled on a patibulum that one may but postpone something which is the balm of troubles, the end of punishment?" (Seneca, Epistula 101.10-14; written in the first century AD), etc.
Precisely, in the context, Seneca speaks about " acutam crucem " which is in fact the " crux simplex ", the stake in english . This is explained in The Catholic Encyclopedia: "Certain it is, at any rate, that the cross originally consisted of a simple vertical pole, sharpened at its upper end. Mæcenas (Seneca, Epist. xvii, 1, 10) calls it acuta crux; it could also be called crux simplex."
How are the two not "explicitly linked"?
In the texts of Plautus, for instance, the few times ( very rare : twice, I think ) where " patibulum " and " crux " are in the same text, there is no evidence (h ence my " explicitly") that this " patibulum " is the crossbar which is placed on a pole ! Same for the other Latin texts. If not, prove me wrong, I expect that. Really...
