Posts by EdLouisiana

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

"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!

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

@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.

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

@ 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.

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

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.

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 all go home now, cause James Woods says nobody was there. Crucifixion never happened because there were no Romans or anyone else to do the crucifying, or anybody to be crucified. Same goes for hanging from trees, impalement, JW-impalement (nailing to a post), and so on.

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

Nope - nobody. We have nothing.
Everyone can believe what they want.
But it should not be received as something from the halls of learning.

So. Since nobody lived 2,000 years ago, how did we get here? How did Christianity come into being? How did all those ruins and epigraphs (on all manner of subjects) get left behind? How did the ancient writings get passed down?

So I suppose contemporary scholars should cease and desist studying the subject, right? Because the common definition of "crucify" means "nail to a cross." No ropes, no support underneath. Go watch The Crucifixion of Sebastian Horseley to see how utterly impossible it is.

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

More crap. Nobody was there.
Nobody.

So nobody lived at those times to leave epigraphs and writings behind, eh?

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

"More crap. We still have no way of knowing."
People try to convince others by their "deep knowledge" when in fact nobody was there.

You are absolutely correct. We can only deal in probabilities, not assumed certainties.

That's why I try to arrange the interpretation around the ancient meanings of the words and their context in the writings, and compare them to the epigraphy we have. There are only a few epigraphs we have to go by.

1. Hoisted figure tied to a patibulum, Esquiline Tomb, Rome, 3rd Century BCE.

2. IN CRVCE FIGARVS, Pompeii, 79 CE. Note: when the ablative is preceded by the preposition in, it denotes either locative or instrumental ablative. Sometimes or maybe usually, both! Like in hoc signo vinces (in this sign you will conquer) and Hoc genus in nulla potest exire nisi in oratione et ieiuno (This kind by no means can anybody evict except by prayer and fasting).

3. Vivat Crux, Pompeii, 79 CE.

4. Pozzuoli, Puteoli Flavian Ampitheatre, Pozzuoli, greater Naples, about 100 CE.

5. Alexamenos Graffito, Palatine Hill, Rome, about 200 CE.

6. Crestus graffito, Palatine Hill, Rome, First Century CE. The first two lines following the title "Crestus" appear to refer to a beating by rods followed by an impalement: virgis erat coesus decretis moribus, super palum a virum fixum (he was beaten with rods by custom from a decision; on top of a palus, oh! a man is fixed). The decipherable lines that follow are rude love verses; the double entendre of the first two lines are also rude. Image and more info here.

7. Multiple crucifixion scene, possible depicting Jerusalem during the Jewish War, Flavian Ampitheatre (Colosseum), Rome, 80 CE. More info here.

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

There is a far more ancient epigraph, from the 3rd century BCE, showing a completely nude figure being lifted up by a patibulum, within the Esquiline Tomb, possibly the tomb of Atilius A.f. Cn Calatinus. Note his arms are stretched out and bound at the wrists to a lifting beam and his feet are hanging free. There is no post behind him. This figure could be the Roman emissary Marcus Atilius Regulus or the defeated Carthaginian general Hannibal Gisco. You an read more about it here and here.

The various writings (Valerius Maximus 4.4.5-6; Seneca, Epistles 98.12; Cicero, In Pisonem 43; Silius Italicus, Punica 2.340-4; Florus, Epitome 1.18.25) describes differently the suffering / torture / crucifixion of Marcus Atilius Regulus as having his eyelids cut off and raised in a cage with spikes pointing inward on the inside, stuffed into a box and pierced by spikes driven into the box, or raised with a patibulum and hanged on a cross / impaled on a stake of an insane height.

Livy, Periochae 17.6, states that for the year 257 BCE, the Carthaginians crucified on a cross or impaled on a stake (I suspect the latter) their own general, Hannibal Gisco. The instrument of execution was of a sufficient height that they had to hoist him up to do it (in crucem sublatus est).

Nude figure of either Hannibal or Regulus being hoisted aloft to be crucified / impaled.

Close-up of the forearm of the figure. Note the ligatures binding the sufferer to a patibulum -- a lifting beam. This is from the Third Century BCE!!!!!

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

Because it [sic!] uses a figure of speech, an antithesis to oppose similar instruments, a crux (which he called stipes) several crux [sic: the plural is cruces]. Consider the context, and examine it carefully, you will understand it better.

if he is using a figure of speech, why would you think he is using crux to mean stipes, that is, the main post, exclusively? And why would you take it to mean that patibulum also meant stipes? Yes, he is using figures of speech to show that in the context (referring to those who do not fight their desires, but willingly give themselves fully to them, thereby "crucifying" themselves -- remember, Seneca was a Stoic) figurative nails (clavi), posts (stipitites), transverse beams (patibula), impaling stakes or the full frames (cruces) are the same as these people's desires (cupiditates)*. They do not necessarily mean that out in the real they are all one in the same! In fact, Seneca differentiates them as differing lethal instruments of suspension and torture out in the real world (DeConsolatione 20.3, Epistulae Morales 14.5, 101.10-14), as leolaia as demonstratively shown.

* I am using the nominative plural in each case.

Already this graffiti (sic! -- these graffiti [Pozzuoli and Vivat Crux]) proves nothing in the question of Jesus. Moreover, this element is strangely unknown (or ignored) by most scholars of the crucifixion. So it is certainly not evidence of weight. Moreover, this testimony could dated second century AD. If true, this testimony appears at the time found the first descriptions of the cross as we know it today (Barnabas, Lucien (sic), graffiti on Mount palatine, etc..)

The Pozzuoli is from about 100 CE; the Vivat Crux (found in Pompeii) 79 CE at the latest. Also found in Pompeii was an obscene graffito, IN CRVCE FIGARUS, meaning, "may you be fixed on/by the crux."

I can tell you right away scholars on this subject they ignore it almost completely. I know how contemporary scholars ignore, or worse, tend to negate the simple, obvious meaning of anaskolopizw through rationalizations. And there are some ancient, byzantine, and medieval scholars, even Julius Lipsius, who translated the greek anaskolopizw into the Latin in crucem agere, and/or vice-versa. Even Victorian scholars were not as bad as contemporary scholars.** Yet if anyone knows anything about the human body, one must use a support with a restrainer to keep the condemned person from hanging out from the crux, with the chance the nails might rip through the hands, wrists or even forearms, or let go of the wood. If such a device is not to be used, one had best use ropes.

Epistle of Barnabas: 80-120 CE.

Lucian of Samosata: 125-180 CE.

Alexamenos Graffito: about 200 CE.

Not exactly contemporary, except perhaps Barnabas. The others are later.

**Harry Thurston Peck, Dictionary of Classical Antiquities (1898), "Crux."

It was impossible that the whole weight of the body should rest upon the nails; hence there was a piece of wood projecting from the stipes on which the sufferer sat, or rather rode (Tertull. adv. Nat. i.12; cf. adv. Haer. i. 12 [sic - Iren. adv. Haer. ii.24]). The expression acuta si sedeam cruce, in the famous lines of Maceneas ap. Pliny [sic - Seneca] Ep. 101, probably refers to this support, and not, as lipsius thought, to impalement. when it was wanting, the body was probably sustained by ropes.

**William Smith, LLD, William Wayte, G. E. Marindin, Ed. A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities (1890), "Crux."

It was impossible that the whole weight of the body should rest upon the nails; hence there was a piece of wood projecting from the stipes on which the sufferer sat, or rather, rode (keras ep' w epoxountai oi stauroumenoi, Just. Mart. Dial. c. Tryph. 91; sedilis excessus, Tertull. Adv. Nat. 1.12; cf. Iren. adv. Haer. 1:12 [sic - adv. Haer. 2.24]. The expression acuta si sedeam cruce, in the famous lines of Maceneas ap. Sen. Ep. 101, probably refers to this support, and not, as Lipsius thought, to impalement (see Archd. Farrar in Dict. of the Bible, s.v. Cross). whwn it was wanting, the body was probably sustained by ropes: the combination of ropes with nails is mentioned by Pliny (fragmentum clavi a cruce and spartum e cruce as charms, H.N. 28.46) and Hilary ("colligantum funium vincula et adactorum clavorum vulnera," de Trin. 10).

Pliny Elder 23-79 CE. fragmentum clavi a cruce means fragment of a nail from a crux.

Hilary 300-368 CE

And even when the support was provided, in order to lift the condemned up with the patibulum, they had to use ropes anyway. What does in crucem tollere mean to you? It means "to lift up into the cross / onto the stake"