Posts by EdLouisiana

101

"Jesus did not die on the cross" (Gunnar Samuelsson)

by Titus in

"jesus did not die on the cross" .

a new doctoral dissertation in theology from gothenburg university claims that the bible has been misinterpreted when it comes to how jesus died.

gunnar samuelsson who wrote the dissertation has studied the original texts and sees no explicit references to crucifiction.

EdLouisiana

Sorry that I am resurrecting a long-dormant thread, but I was able to read what Mr. Samuelsson had to say about Roman crucifixion (or is it suspension-on-wood?) is that the ancient texts are as clear as mud. That I agree with. Although he does mention the use of the word stauros by Diodorus Siculus to denote a Roman crucifixion type of suspension which was certainly going on in his day. Same thing with Lucian in Prometheus. Ditto Philo in In Flaccum 72 although the author missed that one.

15

Adherents of Pro and Anti Cross Teachings ...Take Note

by itsibitsybrainbutbigenoughtosmellarat in

often in posts, i see ones referring to "the cross" or the jws view of an "upright stake" in posts on this and other sites.

a few years ago i saw "prince the rock entertainer" draw attention in a concert to "a lie told over and over" and then a cross appeared in a large picture behind him on stage demonstrating his epiphany through studying with the jws, about the instrument of death actually being an upright stake...to cite just one example.. all researchers and biblical enthusiasts should take note of the work accomplished by gunnar samuelsson and his team.

the publication was released in 2011 entitled crucifixion in antiquity and examines all scholarly works previously done on the subject as well as exaustive research by a team of people looking for facts and archeology to support one view or the other.

EdLouisiana

15

Adherents of Pro and Anti Cross Teachings ...Take Note

by itsibitsybrainbutbigenoughtosmellarat in

often in posts, i see ones referring to "the cross" or the jws view of an "upright stake" in posts on this and other sites.

a few years ago i saw "prince the rock entertainer" draw attention in a concert to "a lie told over and over" and then a cross appeared in a large picture behind him on stage demonstrating his epiphany through studying with the jws, about the instrument of death actually being an upright stake...to cite just one example.. all researchers and biblical enthusiasts should take note of the work accomplished by gunnar samuelsson and his team.

the publication was released in 2011 entitled crucifixion in antiquity and examines all scholarly works previously done on the subject as well as exaustive research by a team of people looking for facts and archeology to support one view or the other.

EdLouisiana

The book is expensive and many have not read it.

Yes, at US $100.00 and up, I'd say it's a very pricey book. I'm hoping it would come down to say $35 for it to be affordable.

As an ex-jw it was a surprize and reassuring to see that yet again, so many things portrayed to us as the indesputable truth, was actually a matter of opinion or doctrinal bias, etc...but in reality unknowable.

That's how I sum the dispute up. Even the two-beam cross that is handed down to us through Church tradition seemed to change when Constantine made Christianity a favored state religion. Before, church fathers appeared to consider being suspended on a crux / stauros as shameful; afterwards they were equating the instrument of Jesus' execution with a Roman tropaeum (victory cross). This in spite of the fact that at least since the Second Century CE (more likely IMO First Century BCE), the two were nearly identical (but there were key differences so people can tell them apart).

11

How many have read Gunnar Samuelsson's Crucifixion in Antiquity?

by itsibitsybrainbutbigenoughtosmellarat in

this is a great read for those interested in an exhaustive work in recent times on the subject.. it may be available in pdf or kindle by now?.

i would like to hear from [if gte mso 9]><xml> <o:documentproperties> <o:author> </o:author> <o:version>12.00</o:version> </o:documentproperties> </xml><!

[endif][if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:worddocument> <w:view>normal</w:view> <w:zoom>0</w:zoom> <w:trackmoves /> <w:trackformatting /> <w:punctuationkerning /> <w:validateagainstschemas /> <w:saveifxmlinvalid>false</w:saveifxmlinvalid> <w:ignoremixedcontent>false</w:ignoremixedcontent> <w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext>false</w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext> <w:donotpromoteqf /> <w:lidthemeother>en-us</w:lidthemeother> <w:lidthemeasian>x-none</w:lidthemeasian> <w:lidthemecomplexscript>x-none</w:lidthemecomplexscript> <w:compatibility> <w:breakwrappedtables /> <w:snaptogridincell /> <w:wraptextwithpunct /> <w:useasianbreakrules /> <w:dontgrowautofit /> <w:splitpgbreakandparamark /> <w:dontvertaligncellwithsp /> <w:dontbreakconstrainedforcedtables /> <w:dontvertalignintxbx /> <w:word11kerningpairs /> <w:cachedcolbalance /> </w:compatibility> <w:browserlevel>microsoftinternetexplorer4</w:browserlevel> <m:mathpr> <m:mathfont m:val="cambria math" /> <m:brkbin m:val="before" /> <m:brkbinsub m:val="--" /> <m:smallfrac m:val="off" /> <m:dispdef /> <m:lmargin m:val="0" /> <m:rmargin m:val="0" /> <m:defjc m:val="centergroup" /> <m:wrapindent m:val="1440" /> <m:intlim m:val="subsup" /> <m:narylim m:val="undovr" /> </m:mathpr></w:worddocument> </xml><!

EdLouisiana

Apologies if this is an old thread, but I found an ecopy (pdf), I've skimmed through it and I'm reading it now. Very exhaustive, but I think he's off the mark with his conclusions about anaskolopizw and anaskindaleuw, even though the former became associated with Roman crucifixion early on in the first century (Philo).

112

The "patibulum" : a fragile theory !

by TheFrench in

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.

EdLouisiana

Justin Epitomator:

From Fr.Wikipedia: -- Justin's work is mostly dated to the 3rd C. CE*, but some date it to the 4th*.

* TD Barnes, John Yardley and Haeckel are footnoted. Yardley and Haeckel estimate his work to about 200 CE.

** Ronald Syme only is footnoted. He dates Justin to 390 CE.

From En.Wikipedia:

He writes that the Romans and the Parthians have divided the world between them, while he copied this from Pompeius Trogus, it would be an anachronism after the rise of the Sassanid Empire in the 3rd C. CE. Furthermore, even though latin changed slowly, his language is consistent with a date in the 2nd C. CE. Ronald Syme argues for a date of 390 CE and claims the anachronism as unimportant, saying that was true in Trogus' time.

His work, Historiarum Philippicarum libri XLIV, he has described as a collection of the most important and interesting passages from Trogus' Historiae philippiae et totus mundi origines et terrae situs which was written during the time of Caesar Augustus.

From ForumRomanum.org:

He himself said that he extracted whatever was the most worthy of being known, and rejected such parts that were neither attractive for the pleasure of reading, nor necessary by way of example. He forwarded the work to someone important, formerly assumed to be Marcus Antonine Caesar, which assumption could very well be correct, and said he had to give an account of his time in Rome to a certain Cato (Cato the Younger? Can't possibly be).

From 1911 Encyclopaedia Brittanica:

Justin probably lived during the times of the Antonines.

Nonnius Marcellus:

From En.Wikipedia:

Nonnius Marcellus, according to the Cambridge History of Classical Literature, lived in the early 4th C. CE, although some 19th and early 20th C. scholars thought he was active in the mid or late 4th C. or even the 5th. There is a monument in Thuburscium dated 323 CE dedicated by a certain Nonius Marcellus Herculius which means his family was in the area at the time. And a minority of scholars think he was a contemporary of Severan authors (i.e., 193-235 CE) (again, only one is cited: Paul T. Keyser.

From Nonii Marcelli peripatetici tubursicensi, De compendiosa doctrina ad filium...

L. IV, P. 366, ln. 12-18: He does say, "patibulum est crux," quoting Sallust.

In quis notissimus quisque aut, malo depedens, verberatur, aut immutilato corpore improbe patibulum eminems affigebantur. - Sallust, Historiarum L. IIII

But he also says that it is a door-bar that doubled as a cudgel that can be used to bash someone's head in, quoting Titinus Fullonibus.

si quisquam hodie, praeter hanc, posticum nostrum pepulerit, Patibulo hoc eii caput defringam.

L. III, P. 221, ln. 11-14 Here, he quotes other authors, Licinus and plautus, who, to me, clearly are speaking of a patibulum and a crux as two separate things:

Deligantur ad patibulos et circumferentur, cruci defiguntur. - Licinus, Rerum Romanum, L. XXI
Patibulus ferar per urbem, deinde suffigar cruci. - Plautus, Carbonaria.

Licinus and Plautus are talking of a patibulum to which one is bound and a crux that one is fixed down on, planted; or is fixed beneath or below on. Apparently, impaled* on a stake. Or is it nailed on to a post or frame, like on a cross?

*Suffigere = to impale is 100% true of heads on pikes: Suetonius Galba 20, caput Galbae hasta suffixum (the head of Galba stuck on a pike)

Even if it can be proven that Nonnius was contemporary with Justin or lived before him, which it cannot, you still have your task ahead of you that justin wrote the crucifixion / impalement phrases himself, out of his own vocabulary, instead of just directly copying direct from Pompeius Trogus. You also have your whole task ahead of you to prove that Justin always* regarded patibulum and crux to be one in the same, which it cannot. And what sort of Patibulum? A door bar? A cross? And what kind of cross? The kind you see in churches today or the sort of gallows in use in Severan times, the one with the projecting seat that looked like a thorn, and guaranteed the criminal would not fall off, by penetrating his person.

Now, in the case of Bomilcar being patibulo suffixus est, i.e., is suffixed to a patibulum, that is, fastened to hang from an overhead horizontal beam in a manner similar to that depicted in the tomb of Atilius Calatinus, how else are we supposed to interpret it? Are we supposed to assume that he was impaled on a door-bar (which is always horizontal in its slot behind the doors and there is no guarantee that it was round) or a carrying pole (like for a royal sedan borne on litters) which was then set vertically? Or do you really believe it was a beam or an entire cross from which the criminal was untied so the executioners could plant it, while others guarded him at spearpoint, until he could be slammed against it and nailed to it?

Come on! You have better brains than that. It would be a heck of a lot more efficient to hoist someone up with the patibulum and park the culprit on an impaling stake between two posts that support the patibulum, or just hang the patibulum, criminal and all, on a single central post.

Now back to cruci suffixos (Cicero, in Pisonem 18.42): given the context, in which Cicero asks if he should delight in the rending of their bodies as much as in the tearing-apart of their reputations, the intended meaning, I would hazard an educated guess, is "impale" like Galba's head on a pike, only here it's the act of suffixing their whole persons.

112

The "patibulum" : a fragile theory !

by TheFrench in

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.

EdLouisiana

You think he was nailed to a pole or a cross?

Who knows? The gospels talk about some kind of cross or, more likely, a tee (like a utility pole) made out of (at least) two different poles. How else would the sign of his criminal charge be simply placed on its top, close to him, and above his head? For that is exactly how the gospels describe the placement of the sign.

And yes, Romans made crosses out of poles. Sometimes they were votive or victory crosses called tropaea (tropaeums - trophies).

112

The "patibulum" : a fragile theory !

by TheFrench in

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.

EdLouisiana

We can too to discuss about letters of Ignatius who speaks probably of stake when he employs the Greek word stauros.

Where in the letters of Ignatius that the writer speaks of stauros as a stake?

Right! We arrive to the same conclusion. [Lex puteoli]

Exactly! :)

112

The "patibulum" : a fragile theory !

by TheFrench in

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.

EdLouisiana

Those reports that do appear to confirm modern thought, are too laconic to definitely determine one way or another. Going by the lifetimes of the writers (Cicero 106-43 BCE, Valerius Maximus fl. 14-37 CE, Seneca 4 BCE - 65 CE, Silius Italicus 28-103 CE, Florus 98-138 CE, Tertullian 160-220 CE, Cassius Dio 150-235 CE), we have the first and two last reports agreeing with each other and the rest, not clear whether they agree or disagree with the first and two last ones. If it weren't for the cross, people would assume that they are in perfect agreement!

Even so, there is clearly a man portrayed as suspended from an overhead beam in that room!

Point 2.

But in his book, Justin employs "patibulo" and "cruce" when he calls the device on which the man is executed. And at the time of Justin (III-IVe. C.) these words had the same meaning (See Nonnius for that.)
So, to admit your analysis, requires proof that this representation have a link with the text of Justin and that Justin uses "patibulo" to name just a part of "cruce".

Actually, I don't have to prove that a patibulo was "just a part" of a cruce. but I can certainly demonstrate that "patibulo" and "cruce" are NOT always one in the same. A patibulum is something that is horizontal, a door-bar in ordinary domestic life, yes? And a crux as a physical object is usually something vertical, a cross, a pole, or impaling stake, yes? Outside of crucifxion and other torture, a crux certainly was something quite long and cylindrical and even then, it could have a crossbar added to it!

Second, you inadvertently make it appear that Justin and Nonnius were contemporaries. Actually Justin appears to have written sometime during the 2nd or 3rd C. CE. His verbiage is consistent with 2nd C. Latin, definitely later than the career of Pompeius Trogus (1st C. BCE), and he writes of the Romans and Parthians dividing the world between them, before the advent of the Sassanid Empire between them. Nonnius Marcellus, on the other hand, flourished in the 4th or 5th C. CE. He was the one who called the patibulum the same as the crux. Now it is true that sometimes, patibulum and crux were one in the same, even in the 1st and 2nd C's CE, but that was not always the case! We have Seneca, Tacitus and Lucius Apuleius to thank for that. For if they were always one in the same, then they could only be one thing: a cross, a tropaeum.

So let's pay Justin a visit, shall we?

Justin, Epitome, XXII.7.7-10 (Latin link) (English link)

7 Hoc certaminis discrimine tanta desperatio inlata Poenis est, ut nisi in exercitu Agathocles orta seditio fuisset, transiturus ad eum Bomilcar, rex Poenorum, cum exercitu fuerit. (As a result of this contest, such despair was felt by the Carthaginians, that, had not a mutiny occured among the troops of Agathocles, Bomilcar, the Carthaginian general, would have gone over to him with his army.)
8 Ob quam noxam in medio foro a poenis patibulo suffixus est, ut idem locus monumentum suppliciorum eius esset, qui ante fuerat ornamentum honorum. (For this treachery he was nailed to a cross suffixed to a patibulum by the Carthaginians in the middle of their forum, that the place which had formerly been the distinguished scene of his honours might also bear testimony of his punishment.)
9 Sed Bomilcar magno animo crudelitatem civium tulit, adeo ut de summa cruce veluti de tribunali in Poenorum scelera contionaretur, (But Bomilcar bore the cruelty of his countrymen with such fortitude; so that he inveighed against the crime of the Carthaginians from the top of his cross high point of his crux as if from a tribunal.)
10 obiectans illis nunc Hannonem falsa adfectati regni invidia circumventum, nunc Gisonis innocentis exilium, nunc in Hamilcarem, patruum suum, tacita suffragia, quod Agathocles socium illis facere quam hostem maluerit. Haec eum in maxima populi contione vociferatus esset, expiravit. (upbraiding them sometimes with "having cut off Hanno, on a false charge of aspiring to sovereignty," sometimes with "having banished the innocent Gisco;" and sometimes with "having secretly condemned his uncle Hamilcar, merely because he wished to make Agathocles his ally rather than their enemy." After uttering these charges with a loud voice, in a numerous assembly of the people, he expired.)

Now right off the bat, we see that Justin's work is an Epitome of Pompeius Trogus' work. Which means he is editing the previous historian's opus to boil it down to a nutshell, an epitome. Which also means that herein, a patibulum is not necessarily the same as a crux. In fact, given the Lex Puteoli being from the same century as the previous work, I strongly lean against the two being one in the same.

Now concerning Bomilcar's crucifixion we notice three things: (1) he was suffixed to a patibulum (patibulo suffixus est), that is, he was fixed underneath, i.e., tightly bound or nailed to a horizontal beam so that he would hang down from it. This is similar to what we have seen in the tomb. (2) He was on the top of a crux, (summa cruce) that is, on its high point, its summit. (3) He was higher up than the masses, like on a tribune. (4) He reportedly delivered a loud, angry harangue at the top of his lungs and suddenly perished.

Now,assuming all four points are true, what kind of crux would best fit the premises? He was hanging FROM the patibulum yet at the same time he was on TOP of the crux. Clearly, they are two different things, yet not necessarily different parts of the same gallows. They could be separate items: one an overhead beam from which Bomilcar hanged, the other an impaling stake on top of which he was quite literally stuck. And unlike those who are hanged by the wrists less than 40 inches apart, he could give a loud harangue before suddenly perishing. All make sense with this arrangement. If it were just a (T) cross, he could give a loud speech but not necessarily pass away quickly. If it were just a vertical pole, he'd expire quickly. If just a horizontal beam, well he wouldn't be on top, would he? No, an impalement on a sharp stake whilst suspended by a separate patibulum would fit this scenario best. Ergo, patibulum and crux here are likely two separate things.

An impalement would fit best as in other places in Justin. Now I will show two examples. In the first example, Epitome XXI.4.7-8, Hanno, who is caught in a plot, has his body scouraged, his arms and legs broken, his eyes put out, and as an end to it all, he is crucified (in crucem figitur), that is, impaled. Crucem is in the accusative and when in is constructed with it, it indicates motion. That means Hanno was figitur (fixed) on a crux by an act of motion: impaled. The second, Epitome XVIII.7.14-15, Cartalo, the son of an exiled general Malchus, had his returning father wait and when he finally attended his father's request, showed up in his sacerdotal finery. The father was not amused and orders the son to be suffixed to a skyscraping crux in full view of the city (in altissimam crucem in conspectu urbis suffigi iussit). Again, we have in crucem suffigi, to fix underneath onto a crux. Since in and the accusative are employed, this means the son was not fastened to a crux the same way that Bomilcar was suffixed to a patibulum, but suffixed with an act of motion - again, impaled.

All the Jews did not observe this law in this way. Some, like the Essenes, hanged the sinner alive (ante-mortem)...

But yet again, there's no hard evidence they nailed them to crosses or posts. They could have hanged them with ropes, or impaled them instead. Infact, the Hebrew verb tzlb is best described according to the various sources quoted by David W. Chapman is "impale, crucify, hang." Impaling is obvious. Crucifying, the methods are not described as far as I know, except in one place in Targum Ruth (see Chapman, p. 24) the rabbinical punishment of strangulation is replaced with tzelibat qisa: impale / crucfiy / hang on a sharp edge / tree / gallows. (see Jastrow Dictionary of the Targumin, entry "qisa.")

112

The "patibulum" : a fragile theory !

by TheFrench in

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.

EdLouisiana

1. Well, it is not I myself that has come to the conclusion that is possibly, or even probably, the tomb of Atilius A.f. Cn. Calatinus. "PHDiva" discusses this in more detail, here, stating that the portrayal of a crucified man would support the interpretation of the other iconographs within that this indeed is the tomb of that Atilius. And it was not I or she who came to that conclusion initially. She obtained her information from Filippo Canali di Rossi, in his peer-reviewed article in Italian, Il sepolcro di Atilio Calatino presso la porta Esquilina. And the Italian scholar appears to be quite certain that this is his tomb.

Now, whether this portrayed suspended subject was Marcus Atilius Regulus specifically would be very impossible to prove, particulary when at about that time, one Carthaginian General Hannibal Giso was also crucified in 257 BCE: (Livy, Periochae 17:6) Hannibal, dux Poenorum, victa classe cui praefuerat, a militibus suis in crucem sublatus est. (Hannibal, the Carthaginian general, was hoisted onto the stake* by his men after the navy he commanded had been defeated.)

* Livius.org simply has "crucified," which means, nail to a cross or tropaeum. I am assuming an impaling stake here.

What compounds the problem is that the ancient Latin writers speak of different tortures that killed marcus Atilius Regulus.

Valerius Maximus IV.4.5-6 does not mention how he died, just that he in turn "suffered glory and misery" and that he had disappeared. (Latin)

Seneca Epistles 98.12: Dic tibi: 'Ex istis, quae terribilia videntur, nihil est invictum. Singula vincere iam multi: ignem Mucius, crucem Regulus, venenum Socrates, exilium Rutilius, mortem ferro adactum Cato; et nos vincamus aliquid.' (Say for yourself: "Because of these, what terrible sights are seen, not one is invincible. Many men have already defeated them one by one: Mucius the fire, Regulus the crux, Socrates poison, Rutilius exile, Cato the stabbing death by iron; and to some degree we may defeat them."

Seneca is far too laconic for us to determine whether by crux, he meant a cross, impaling stake, or something else entirely.

Cicero In Pisonem 43 : nec mihi ille M. Regulus quem Carthaginiensis resectis palpebris inligatum in machina vigilando necaverunt supplicio videtur adfectus. (Nor does that illustrious man whom the Carthaginians, having cut off his eyelids and bound him in a machine, killed by keeping him awake, appear to have had punishment inflicted upon him.) Link for Latin text.

Here, Cicero doesn't mention anything of any cross. He just said that Regulus was bound inside some kind of machine or device that kept him awake.

Silius Italicus Punica II.340-4: vidi ego, cum, geminas artis post terga catenis eiunctus palmas, vulgo traheretur ouante carceris in tenebras spes et fiducia gentis Regulus Hectoreae; vidi, cum robore pendens Hesperiam cruce sublimis spectaret ab alta. (I saw, when both hands bound behind his back with tight fetters, before the rejoicing masses Regulus of Hector the hope and courage of the [Roman] people was dragged into the darknesses of prison. I saw when hanging from the oak, raised on high, he saw Hesperia [that is, Italy] from his lofty crux.

Again, Silius Italicus does not specify what kind of crux. Everybody thinks "cross," but it could have been something different. The oak (robore) Regulus reportedly hanged from could be a timber (beam), a post, a trunk, or even a live tree.

Florus Epitome I.18.25: Sed nec illo voluntario as hostis suos reditu nec ultimo sive carceris seu crucis supplicio deformata maiestas; immo his omnibus admirabilior quid aliud quam victor dr victoribus atque etiam, quia carthago non cesserat, de fortuna triumphavit? (His voluntary return to his enemies and his final sufferings, whether in prison or on the crux, in no way sullied his dignity; nay rendered by all this only the more worthy of admiration, what did he do but triumph victorious over his victors and, since Carthage had not yielded, over Fortune herself?) Link to Latin text.

The link has crux translated "cross" which, again, could mean something else entirely. Silius Italicus has him hanging from an oak!

Zonaras quotes Cassius Dio (Roman History Bk. 11 [at bottom of webpage]) as writing, "And he was tortured to death, as the report goes, by his captors. They cut off his eyelids and for a time shut him up in darkness, then they cast him into some kind of specially constructed receptacle bristling with spikes, and made him face the sun; thus through suffering and sleeplessness -- for the spikes kept him from reclining in any fashion -- he perished. When the romans found it out, they delivered the foremost captives in their hands to his children to torture and put to death in revenge."

No mention of any cross or crucifixion. just a swarm of iron spikes that would pierce him if he reclined in any way. And it turns out, it is these, that Tertullian called "so many cruces!"

Tertullian, ad Nationes I.18.10: Si crucem, configendi corporis machinam nullus adhuc ex vobis Regulus pepigit,... (If the crux, the siege-engine of the body that is about to be transfixed [or subjoined], thus far not a one of you all save Regulus has agreed upon...)

Tertullian, ad Nationes I.18.3: Crucis vero novitatem numerosae abstrusae Regulus vester libenter dedicavit. (Your Regulus gladly initiated the novelty of the crux: numerous and driven in.)

Tertullian, ad Martyres 4.6: Regulus, dux Romanorum, captus a Carthaginensibus,... hostibus reddit et in arcae genus stipatus undique extrinsecus clavis transfixus, tot cruces sensit! (Regulus, a general of the Romans, captured by the Carthaginians,... he returns to the enemy and, crammed into a sort of strong-box and transfixed with nails, he felt so many cruces!)

From Tertullian, we find that the crux was, in general, a siege-engine of the body; and specifically for Regulus, there was a novelty to the crux: there were many of them, numerous and driven into a strong-box! So what sort of crux he suffered was not necessarily a cross, but a torture by and inside a sort of "iron maiden," a receptacle for his body that was bristling like a porcupine, but on the inside, with innumerable "cruces:" impaling spikes.

But it still does not deny the fact that there is, portrayed in the tomb, a man bound at the wrists and suspended from an overhead beam. Whether this was intended to portray Regulus or someone else who was hanged by the Carthaginians, we do not know, for the ancient reports conflict with the modern idea that Regulus was nailed to a cross or even a post! Those reports that appear to confirm modern thought,

End of point 1. (cont. for point 2, etc.)

112

The "patibulum" : a fragile theory !

by TheFrench in

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.

EdLouisiana

But I don't understand why you show this representation. What is the link with my topic? Is it a proof in the support of the Jesus' cross?

The transverse beam from which the subject is depicted as suspended in mid-air by the Carthaginians was called by the Romans a PATIBULUM. (Justin Epitome 22.7.7-10). Romans used patibulums before, and they used them after the execution of Jesus in the process of execution they called cruci figere and we call crucifixion. I adnit, though, not all the time. Sometimes they just IMPALED people and called it cruci figere (crucifixion). And by impale, I don't mean the process in the JW's bizaare metamagical beliefs, I mean the real thing: driving a sharp-pointed stake through the living person.

Thanks to the 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.

And he was hanged post-mortem from a beam that projected from the main post. (Mishnah, Sanhedrin ch. 6). These are the RABBINICAL writings. The Targumin, dated from as early as the Second temple period, could mean and probably mean something else entirely: crucify, impale.