Posts by TheFrench

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.

TheFrench

Then he goes on to claim that Seneca, by using stipes, patibulum, and crux to refer to the same torture-execution gallows, clearly meant that they all referred to a vertical stake! Would he, Seneca, not be referring to three discrete parts of the typical crucifixion gallows and by extension, the whole gallows itself?

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

I do not believe that what TheFrench said is the truth. The truth would be from the epigraphy of the time. Graffiti like the Pozzuoli and the Vivat Crux. The Pozzuoli clearly shows the condemned criminal suspended by a stipes (post), with his arms stretched out on a patibulum (crossarm) while "riding" an acuta crux (small impaling stake, spike, tree-nail). While I'm convinced it was no fun for him, the tagger thought otherwise.
Pozzuoli:

Already this graffiti 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, graffiti on Mount Palatine, 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.

TheFrench

What interests me, and may have been covered earlier in the thread, I apologise, I simply do not have time to read it all now, but I'm fascinated as to why the WT still sticks to the old "stake" theory instead of saying nothing.

Not that "old"!
Proof of this is that some Samuelsson wrote a thesis on the subject recently.

The original marketing ploy was to establish the difference between the WT and other religions, typical of Rutherford. But lots of people from a conventional christian background are really upset by the rejection of the cross, it is often one of the main reasons they do not go on and study, so why don't the WT keep quiet ?

So you think all methods are good to convert people, even to hide the truth.

I must admit they have kept this issue in the background much more in recent times, but it is still their contention that the Cross is nothing but a pagan symbol, hard to swallow for many, which makes the rest of the WT stuff begin to look unpalatable too for them.

You are not very clear in what you said. Either the WT hides this teaching, or the WT says this teaching. We must choose.

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.

TheFrench

(9) Tertullian (Ad Nationes 1.12) stated: "If you position a man with his arms outstretched (manibus expansis), you have created an image of the cross (imaginem crucis). This text uses the verbexpandere "to spread across, widen" and the context shows clearly that this pose is one with the arms outstretched laterally since this image of the cross includes a crossbeam or antemna. (10) Minucius Felix (Octavius 29.6) made a very similar comparison: "A crossbeam (iugum) set up forms the sign of the cross (crucis signum), and so too does a man with outstretched hands (homo porrectis manibus)". This passage uses porrigere "to reach out", the same verb used byLactantius, and although it can be used more easily with upward extension than many of these other words discussed here (since it involves an act of reaching), it clearly refers to a reaching to the side since the pose is directly compared with the crossbeam of the cross. (11) Rufinus (Commentarius in Symbolum Apostolorum, 14): "These words, height and breadth and depth are a description of the cross (descriptio crucis).... by breadth the right hand and the left that extend outwards (latitudinem quoque illam quae distenta in dextram laevamque manus)". This image here is one of the two hands extended laterally, one on the right side and one on the left. The verb distendere, again, is the same one used by Senecaand Aulis Gellius, and it emphasizes that the hands are stretched apart in different directions. (12) Finally, we may quoteAugustine of Hippo (De Doctrina Christiana 2.41.62): "Of the cross of the Lord (crucem domini), its breadth (latitudo) is signified by the transverse beam on which the hands are stretched out (in transverso ligno quo extenduntur manus)". This is another clear reference to the hands being stretched out laterally from one side to another, for it explicitly mentions the hands being stretched out upon a transverse beam (in transverso ligno). Taken together, the verbs extendere, distendere, dispandere, diducere, explicare, expandere, and porrigere collectively fit an expansion along a crossbeam much better than an upward extension on the upright. Porrigere, for example, may be used of upward extension, but the two instances here are clearly described as lateral extension.

When a man was tied to a stipes (see here ), he had his arms above his head, stretched along the post. Whether to describe the attitude that the body takes, you could say that the arms are "extended" because that is the upper limbs of body that are abnormally expanded in this torture. Moreover, Seneca, who observed executions in his time, mentions this feature of the body when it tells of a man at the stake: "districtus (...) membra."

A further passage in Seneca (De Vita Beata 19.3) is noteworthy, tho it doesn't mention the hands or arms unambiguously: "They are stretched upon as many crosses as their own desires (quot cupiditatibus tot crucibus distrahuntur)"; the verb here is distrahere "draw in different directions, separate forcibly, divide apart", a meaning very similar to that of distendere. Since "stretching" in crucifixion was otherwise almost unanimously in reference to hands/arms/limbs, distrahere could possibly be added to the list as another word that more felicitously pertains to the stretching of the arms on a crossbeam than on the upright post. What is conspiciously missing in this group are words that more clearly suggest upward extension of the hands, such as erigere "reach up, make erect" (likeporrigere a form of rigere "to reach"), surrigere "to raise, lift up", or elevare, allevare, levare "to lift up, raise". This may be illustrated in the use of such words in passages that do discuss the upright. So Rufinus (Commentarius in Symbolum Apostolorum, 14) wrote: "By height he meant the part which stretches above the earth and towers upwards (altitudunum vero illam quae super terram porrecta sublimis erigitur)". In addition to porrigere, Rufinus uses erigere to refer to the extension upwards of the upright pole. So in short, the word patibulum pertained both to a horizontal beam used with doors and a beam used in the lateral extension of the hands from side to side in the punishment of slaves and criminals, especially in the case of crucifixion.

Now, to return to the passage of Seneca which you refer, On the happy life - XIX-, patibulum is used interchangeably with stipes for the following reason:

In the context, the writer made a presentation on the virtue and the way the great philosophers like Epicurus, have sought and advocated by their teachings. Seneca speaks in particular of all those who despised them because these philosophers were not living in accordance with what they taught. Seneca takes so their defense by explaining that the important thing was primarily to seek virtue, that these philosophers were trying to do despite their imperfections and their inability to achieve their ideals. Seneca criticized so openly to all those who denigrated these philosophers to be slaves to their greed and their selfish passions. Far from being virtuous, the life of these men was only meanness, tightness and mental distress in contrast to the serenity enjoyed by those philosophers who tended to their high ideals. To illustrate the degree of suffering that must have felt these critics, who were harming themselves by rejecting virtue, Seneca compares each one to a man who "crucify" himself. They wrote:

"You say that not one of [these philosophers] do not realize what he says and lives according to his maxims. No wonder, when their words are so heroic, so sublime, so high dominate all storms human life when they are not meant to tear at least of these crosses [Lat. crucibus] where all, as you are, hold your hands the nails that tear you? "

Seneca compares the mental suffering that these men suffered, they were wrong in themselves, to 'crucibus' on which is nailed themselves. They were, somehow, their tormentor, unlike philosophers who tried to break away from these "cross" by seeking virtue which preserved them from "all the storms of life", as the fact being torn by greed. To show how this suffering was unbearable, and the condition of these greedy men was very poor, Seneca will compare each of them to a torture victim who suffers several simultaneous or successive punishment. Of course, this situation could not happen in reality because we could not attach the same sentenced to several posts at once, or subject it to more of a "crucifixion", the latter leading to death systematically. Seneca writes thus:

"The tortured [in reality] is suspended at least only one pole [Lat. Stipitibus]; those who are abusers themselves [figuratively speaking] suffer many crosses [Lat. Crucibus] that passions of the tug. "

The antithesis of Seneca is meaningful only if "crucibus" is the punishment that the word "stipitibus" evokes, ie the execution of a "stake". The contrast is illustrated by the difference in the number of executions and not in the way that the convict is executed. In reality, the victim suffered "a single [Lat. Singulis] post", so figured, critics philosophers suffer "as much as passions that cross the tug." This antithesis arises a similar meaning to the words and stipes crux, ie "post." Seneca then ends his comparison about the attitude of these "crucified" in the figurative sense: "slanderers however, is to insult others they have graciously. I could not see a hobby, was that some men spew their gallows (lat. patibulo) on those who watch them. ". Denigration, by which these men were critical of the philosophers, he was a "hobby" harmless? No, these men were contemptuous, driven by a relentless hatred which prompted them to boo those seeking virtue. They behaved like those "crucified" spitting their gallows, or patibulum on those who observed them. Again, the term patibulo be understood in the sense of stipitibus or crucibus, since it also falls within the framework of the antithesis.

Thus, Seneca has indeed used the terms crux and patibulum within the meaning of a single vertical post (stipes).

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.

TheFrench

When we look at references to the punitive patibulum, it was frequently mentioned with references to a stretching out of the hands or arms. In your reply to my post, you say in reference to Seneca that it is not explicit whether this extension of the arms is horizontal or rather vertically on a pole. But the vocabulary used shows quite clearly that the extension is lateral, not vertical. (1) First we have the above-mentioned passage from Plautus, Miles Gloriosus, 359. The slave Sceledrus stands in the doorway trying to block access to the old man's room. Naturally, his arms would have been extended laterally to the two door posts. Palaestrio says to him: "I believe you'll have to walk out of the city gate in that pose very soon, hands spread out as you carry the patibulum (dispessis manibus patibulum quom habebis)". The situation itself makes clear that it is a side-to-side extension of arms, and the verb used here is dispandere "to spread out, extend, expand". (2) Aulus Gellius (Noctes Atticae 15.15.4) quotes this passage from Plautus and comments: "We say passis manibus of hands and velis passis of sails when they are stretched out and spread (diductis atque distentis)". This comment explains the expression used by Plautus with the verbs distendere "stretch in different directions, stretch apart" and diducere "draw apart, part, split, separate"; the image is one of hands being stretched apart in different directions. This again supports the understanding of patibulum as a crossbeam with the arms stretched in opposite directions, than a vertical raising of the arms together on a pole. (3) Next we have the two references in Seneca. First we read in Consolatio ad Marciam 20.3 that some who fashion "crosses" (cruces) "stretch out the arms on a patibulum" (alii brachia patibulo explicuerunt). This uses explicare "to spread out, unroll", which suggests that the arms (brachia) were spread out and not brought up together along a beam, while (4) Seneca elsewhere (in Fragmenta 124.6) makes reference to someone made "to stretch out his hands with a patibulum" (extendendae per patibulum manus), here using extendere "to stretch out, widen". (5) Lactantius (Epitome Divinarum Institutionum, 51) in reference to the Crucifixion mentions Jesus' "hands stretched out on a patibulum (extendit in patibulo manus), which reached out their wings west to east (in orientem occidentum que porrexit)". The first clause uses extendere with respect to the stretching of the hands on a patibulum, just as Seneca did, and the second clause makes clear that this is a lateral extension from side to side, both in the metaphor of birds' wings (which stretch out to the side when a bird is in flight) and the directionals of west and east (the verb in this clause is porrigere "reach out"). (6) Arnobius (Commentarii in Psalmos 137.33) also connects the patibulum to a stretching out of hands: "He stretched forth his hands upon the patibulum of the cross (extendit manus suas crucis patibulum)", here using the same verb extendere that Lactantius described as a lateral extension in the same situation, and here the patibulum is not the cross as a whole but a part thereof. (7) As a final example, Augustine of Hippo (Enarrationes in Psalmos, 87.9) wrote: "If in fact that he says [by the prophet], 'I stretched out my hands (extendi manus meas),' we understand the patibulum of the cross (crucis patibulum)". This again presents the patibulum as the part of the cross where the hands are outstretched, with the same verb used by Seneca, Lactantius, and Arnobius. These passages show that the word patibulum was closely associated with a stance of outstretched hands, which was rather clearly depicted as lateral in Plautus and Lactantius, and the use of distendere and diducere by Aulus shows it was a stance that had the hands stretched apart in different directions, as it would be if stretched laterally from side to side. Extendere also suggests the expansion of distance between the hands, and patibulum crucis in the references by Arnobius and Augustine indicate that the patibulum is not synonymous with the cross but the portion on which the hands are stretched out. To these examples may be added many others using the word crux instead of patibulum, which is what would be expected if the patibulum was a part of the crux or something added to it. These references also suggest a lateral extension of the arms: (8) Seneca (De Ira 1.2.2) elsewhere refers to "another to have his limbs stretched upon the crux (alium in cruce membra distendere)"; here he uses the same word distendere that Aulis Gellius used to illustrate the use of dispandere manibus in Plautus. The limbs are not brought together or near each other but are stretched apart in different directions. Since this passage describes a similar situation as that in the other two Seneca passages in (3) and (4), it further suggests the use of extendere there should be understood as referring to extension along a lateral beam than up together along a vertical beam.

1), 2)
Yes, Palaestrio wants to spread the arms of Sceledrus on this piece of wood called patibulum. But this piece is also called furca in the works of Plautus. It was used to punish slaves without necessarily causing death. Thus, it was indeed a piece autonomous, independent of the crux, at least in the plays of Plautus. Therefore consider that the patibulum is a crossbar and conclude that the crux of which Plautus speaks, is a cross, because the arms are extended on the patibulum, it's make a shortcut in reasoning. Before reaching this conclusion, you must prove that Plautus refers to a crossbar when he uses the word patibulum in his texts.

3)
Yes, "explicuerunt" may refer to the extension of the limbs. But this word does not say how the members are extended. The word "explicare" is used, for instance, to describe the horse which spread its legs at the trot (crurum explicatu). - Pliny the Elder, VIII, 166. Moreover, Seneca could think to a simple pole when using the word because : 1) Seneca already employed patibulum within the meaning of "stake", for instance in his letter 101 to Lucilius 2) Seneca describes a man who has his arms and legs extended on a crux, crux which is obviously a stake: " Noxius infami districtus stipite membra" translates as "The criminal, the limbs extended on the infamous stake" (Latin Anthology, 415, 23 s.) 3) In Consolation to Marcia, the philosopher describes several types of crux. Considering that patibulum means a cross, it involve that the list of Seneca does not include the stake on which it was not unusual to execute a condemned man.

4) is indeed a quote attributed to Seneca and transmitted by Lactantius quoted in 5). But the expression used, "extendendae manus", is not unequivocal. That is can be a horizontal extension but also a vertical extension. The verb "extendere" is used in the sense of "extended" or "lie" and does not indicate the direction in which this action is performed. When it is associated to "manus", he gives no details as to the position of the hands or arms. That just indicates the state of arms: in extension. Cicero, for example, uses it to describe the fingers that stretch (extensis digitis) in opposition to the fingers that flex (digitos contraxerat). Latin authors such as Lactantius and others (see 6 and 7) could use "extendere" to describe the extended arms of Jesus on the cross. But when, four centuries earlier, Seneca uses this word, there is no evidence that describe the torture victim lying on a cross, even when it is stated that 'arms are extended'.

8) You quote a special version of the passage of De Ira: "Allium in cruce membra distendere" (1.2.2). But the version generally used, based on the main manuscript of this work, is: "Allium in cruce membra diffindere". - Ambrosianus codex (No. 90). Two other manuscripts which refer translators to establish the Latin text, the codex laurentianus 76, 32, and the codex Parisinus 15086, contain the word "diffundere" instead of "diffindere". I do not know what manuscript contains "distendere". If any, they are marginal. "diffindere" has the meaning "divide", "split", as indicated by Lewis and Short. Diffindere found in Apuleius (second century.): "But the gardener realizes that, far from smooth, the ferocity of the soldier is still irritates her prayers, and even that he wants his life, for he had returned the vine, and, striking the butt, would break his skull (cerebrum diffindere suum). Then he uses an extreme party. "- Metamorphoses, IX, 40, 1. Seneca did he use "diffindere" in the sens of split members of a man attached to a crux? It is very likely because, otherwise, Seneca described the ordeal as Patron will suffer while suspended in a crux: "When you mutilerais all my members (perire membratim), provided that a broken body and impotent I rest away. "For this reason, A. Bourgery translated this passage from De Ira : "a third, dislocate (diffendere) members on the arms of a cross."

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.

TheFrench

Indeed this issue stake/cross is not the most important.

But many here are defenders of the truth... Well the truth is told on this issue !

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.

TheFrench

Somewhat off the topic but I have heard that Hitler had experiments done on prisoners on crucifixion and it showed that a man would last less than hour on a stake and much longer on a cross. Any verification?

This is true but men who were tortured in concentration camps were only suspended by the hands. So all the weight of their bodies weighed on the hands.

In ancient times, one who was crucified could have tied or nailed feet. Which had the effect of distributing the weight on two points of support, hands and feet. Under these conditions, the agony lasts longer. This is true whatever the device (or cross post).

Therefore, any comparison must be made keeping in mind the difference.

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.

TheFrench

Hello Leolaia

I had abandoned this discussion last year because my situation has changed. But now I have time, so I want to resume our discussion where we left off. There is a lot to say. Let's go step by step. The beginning :

First of all, Ambrose was cited in response to the claim in the OP that the "Latin Fathers of the Church has NEVER described Jesus carrying a patibulum"; Ambrose was certainly a Latin Father regardless of whether he was early or not. I also don't understand your reference to Christian art as pertinent to Ambrose's use of the term. Those equally late (or later) pictorial depictions portray as you say "Jesus carrying a complete cross, not the 'patibulum' [alone]", whereas Ambrose uses the (partitive) genitive patibulum crucis. So Ambrose (and others who used this expression, such as Apponius, Rufinus, and a Latin edition of Josephus) understood the patibulum as an object belonging to the crux (in the case of a possessive genitive) or as a portion of the crux itself (in the case of the partitive). This is not representative of an understanding of patibulum as a synonym for crux, nor is it reflective of the depiction in Christian art of Jesus carrying a composite cross to Golgotha.
Although Tertullian used the term antemna to refer to the crossbeam, he similarly understood that Jesus' crux was a composite (tota crux), with the upright beam being only a part of the crux (pars crucis), made complete (integrae crucis) only with the crossbeam (cum antemna). This pictures the antemna as a part of the crux as well, and one which was secondarily added to it, which accords well with the way Ambrose, Rufinus, and others referred to the patibulum as belonging to the crux or a part of the crux. In fact, Tertullian explicitly designates the antemna as a part of the crux, with crux realized as a partitive genitive (antemna crucis pars est in Adversus Marcionem 3.18), a parallel to the expression patibulum crucis in Ambrose (cf. also antemna crucis in Jerome, Epistula 14.18, Paulinus of Nola, Carmina 17.107, etc.).
There was also a usage of the word patibulum as a synonym for crux (and in Late Antiquity as a term for a "gallows" used in hanging by suffocation as in Isidore of Seville, Etymologiae 5.27.33-34, a usage that still survives in Romance languages like French patibule or Spanish patíbulo), but this fact does not imply that this was the only sense; the use of the term in Ambrose and elsewhere shows that it was not always synonymous with crux in the Latin Fathers. Rather this would be an instance of metonymy (specifically, synecdoche), with the word for a salient portion standing in for the object as a whole. This use may be an indication of how ubiquitous the patibulum was in crucifixion, if in patibulo suspendere could easily stand in for in crucem suspendere. There are several potential motives for a metonymic use of the word patibulum. One is euphemism. Cicero referred to crucifixion as "the most cruel and disgusting penalty" (In Verrem 2.5.165) and Josephus wrote that it was "the most wretched of deaths" (Bellum Judaicum 7.203) and the apostle Paul referred to Jesus' crucifixion as a "humiliation" (Philippians 2:8), a "curse" (Galatians 3:13), and perceived by the world as a folly and scandal (1 Corinthians 1:23, Galatians 6:14). It is well known that ancient writers wrote euphemistically about crucifixion (such as using the term "tree" as in the expression arbor infelix), and tended to avoid describing its gruesomeness (with a few exceptions). The term crux highlights the torturous nature of this form of execution (as it is derived from cruciare "to torture"), whereas patibulum was originally a word for rather ordinary domestic objects. Another likely reason for Christians was the desire to reserve the term crux to the unique cross of Jesus Christ and avoid using it with profane or derogatory reference. A rather clear instance of this can be found in Paulinus of Nola's account of the discovery of the "True Cross" (Epistulae 31.5). After excavating the site of the Crucifixion, "three crosses (tres cruces) were found together, as they had once stood together"; these were identified as the crosses of Jesus Christ and the two thieves executed with him. But "the thanksgiving for their discovery began to be compounded with troubled doubts. The devoted faithful were rightly afraid that they might perhaps choose the patibulum of a thief (patibulum latronis) in mistake for the Lord's cross (cruce domini)". Although the word crux was used of the thief's cross when referred collectively with the "True Cross", when the crosses were specified individually the two inferior crosses were designated patibula in contrast to the crux of the Lord. The story also does not construe the three crosses as obviously distinct in appearance, as it took a resurrection miracle to prove which of the three crosses was the Lord's (cf. also Zeno of Verona, Tractatus 1.2 for the use of patibulum to refer to the thieves' crosses).

The Latin expression "patibulum crucis" does not appear before the fourth century when it becomes popular. And this is not a partitive genetif as you state but a genetif of apposition.

For instance, Ambrose wrote: "it was a sign that salvation (Salutem) would spread over the people by the gibbet of the Cross (per patibulum crucis)." - Evangelii Lucam II, IV, 89; see trad. It is obvious that the author here uses "patibulum crucis" within the meaning of "cross", taken as a whole, and not a part of the cross, the crossbeam, as a means of salvation. "Cross" means so much in the sense of a genitive of apposition (not partitive).

This expression is also always translated "cross" or "gallows of the cross" because it is the sense that it gave the Church Fathers.

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.

TheFrench

OK Leolaia. I have noted you reply. I want to discuss all this with a friend who matrise Greek and Latin, and I am going to visit the library to check some of the books you mention. E ven if the coming weeks promises to be loaded, I return to you as soon as possible to answer all your points.

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.

TheFrench

Again, what is the relevance of whether it was a stake or cross? How many angels can dance on a pin? The Bible has contradictions. So what. This is not news. The Witnesses are always off on side issues. They think that debating these side issues, misquoting and misconsturing, gives them credence. I was very impressed with it as a child and early teenager.
If he died on a stake, what does it matter if he died, was buried, was ressurrected, ascended, will come again. Paul the earliest writer speaks of the cross.
There were few eyewritnesses. All women, with the one exception of the Beloved Disciple. Mary Magadalene, for one, comes across as the corrective type.

You applaud when someone like Leolaia conducting a study of dozens of pages about the cross / stake. But when a Jehovah's Witness treats the problem, it's absurd, pointless and childish ...

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.

TheFrench

My remark was here to show that your opinion (, there is no evidence that this "patibulum" is the crossbar which is placed on a pole) was ironically inspired by an apostate and not clearly yours. And what you are provided now is a slightly different opinion, because Leolaia has clearly provide you with a list of latin texts where the punishment of patibulum lead to (or "explicitly linked" to) the punishment of the cross, and you have rejected them not because we have two separate instance of a punishment as you are trying to reformulate you opinion but because during the same punishment "there is no evidence that this "patibulum" is the crossbar wiche is placed on a pole", if someone read french, he could see that when i have formulated this argument before you, it was ironically, as an example of a stupid argument ("c'est fort de café") but this is exactly the path that "Jéhu/TheFrench" has taken !!!

You already forget what I told you years ago. In August 2008, I said you verbatim : "Le texte de Miles Gloriosus parle seulement de la coutume qui consistait à faire porter le patibulum sur les épaules d'un esclave, mais n'affirme pas que ce patibulum était par la suite ajouté, en guise de barre transversale, à un poteau vertical déjà en place sur le lieu d'exécution." That is in english : "The text of Miles Gloriosus, speaks only of the custom which was to make to carry the patibulum on the shoulders of a slave, but does not claim that this patibulum was later added as a crossbar, to vertical post already in place on the place of execution". So, sorry but you did not inspire me.

It is strange that you are totally agree with one of the poster here, when he try to connect too quickly "xylon" with "furca" even if Plutarch is calling it "sterigma" to validate the jw's idea that Jesus has carried his stake (and not a cross), even if the description of Plutarch could perfectibly feet with the idea of a punishment of "patibulum" or "furca" ALONE, but in the same time you are totally incapable to see a kind of "norm" as Hengel stated in his book, starting event before the first century i e 1/ the flogging 2/ the carrying of the stauros 3/ the hanging on the cross etc...

If you are so sure of yourself, prove what you say: "starting event before the first century i e/ the flogging 2/ the carrying of the stauros 3/ the hanging on the cross". I listen you...

and in this normalisation the possibly form of the cross as we used to represent it, and as both pagan and christian's writer has testified on the second century, and even in the first century !! (remember the Pozzuelo graffito that you seems to believe that it is a fake, and for your information Guarduacci, the woman who has found the graffito, is a recognised archeologist in Italy and a specialist of the first century christians, so your comment that no specialists on the subject have known this graffito is particulary strange !!)

The Pozzuoli graffito can be date from the second century. You know very well. Now tell us why Christians of the second-fourth century believed that Jesus carried a cross entire, not patibulum ?

I don't know if i understand clearly italian, but it seems for me that the crucified men on this roman tomb is dated from 200 B.C and not A.D (on page 7 of the Pdf document), so it has clearly a tranversal beam on this representation.

This is not a cross ! Where is the pole of the cross in this picture ? I listen you ...