The scandalum crucis & its shape

* Robin M. Jensen,
The Cross: History, Art, and Controversy
[Σταυρός: Ιστορία, Τέχνη και Αντιλογία],
Harvard University Press, 2017,
p. 9.

p. 228

+ T Y I -shaped crosses / Σταυροί τύπου + T Y I

 

* Τα Νέα, Μήπως κάνουμε λάθος τον σταυρό μας;, 12 Απριλίου 2014.

* New Scientist,  Shroud of Turin depicts Y-shaped crucifixion, 2 April 2014.

* Daily Mail, Was Jesus crucified with his arms ABOVE his head? Turin Shroud hints crucifixion was more painful than traditionally thought, 3 April 2014.

 *

«Μαρτυρική θανάτωση του αγίου Γεωργίου
με ανάρτηση και πρόσδεση σε στύλο
(η αρχαιοελληνική ανασταύρωση).
Ο άγιος κατασπαράσσεται επί πλέον με σιδερόνυχα».

Death & resurrection in early Christianity /Θάνατος & ανάσταση στις απαρχές του Χριστιανισμού

Early Christianity, in contrast to a few Greek and Alexandrian intellectuals, does not emphasise the earthly life of Jesus. Except among the exalted who drew inspiration from martyrdom, it dwells on his sufferings even less. The reliefs on sarcophagi say little about his human trials. They were influenced by pagan thought, and in times of trouble they wanted to stress not Christ's weakness but his power to save. It is only fairly late that Christ begins to appear as sufferer rather than as divine Teacher and Wonder-Worker; and even then this is shown as a triumph in disguise, without humiliation. The Crucifixion is rarely depicted before the fourth century. As to Constantine's alleged vision of the cross in the sky, followed by his employment of the cruciform labarum-monogram XP ( = Christos), the cross meant magic more than anything else to him, and in any case it stood not so much for the Passion as for the Resurrection -a new era and a new stage in the divine plan. Those wishing to see Jesus as god rather than man could rely on the Gospel according to St John. For this, despite its Hellenism, had concentrated in mystical and allegorical fashion on the divine nature of Jesus, seeing him not as a man but as a personified idea.

The wall-paintings in the catacombs of Rome and elsewhere are strongly influenced by this Gospel, and again have little to say about the humanity of Jesus. As among pagans, burial and not cremation was the custom, in order to permit the Resurrection of the body. Early Christians had at first preferred to bury their dead in open-air cemeteries above ground, but from c. 200, when space grew short and persecution increasingly threatened, they buried them instead in these underground corridors and cells. At Rome such catacombs evolved from subterranean graves of the Jews and other western and eastern traditions. The dark, soft, volcanic rock, strong but easily cut, was hollowed out first into a simple Greek cross or grid of the Catacomb of St Calixtus-to whom pope St Zephyrinus (d. c. 217) entrusted the administration of  'the cemetery' - and then into miles of several-storeyed mazes, containing between half and three-quarters of a million tombs. During the persecutions, some catacombs may have provided temporary places of refuge, and after Christianity became official, although burials continued until the end of the fourth century, they were turned into centres of pilgrimage.

The catacombs are lined with religious paintings, which reflect all the tendencies of the time, ranging from the artistic traditions of Rome to those of Alexandria and Mesopotamia, and from natural classical style to impressionistic or illusionistic baroque on the one hand and the simple severity of popular art on the other. This is a dogmatic narrative art, owing debts to the crowded reliefs of Roman tradition, and it uses much symbolism and shorthand, not from any desire for secrecy (the intention was to instruct rather than conceal) but because supernatural truth defies analysis. The paintings seem to reflect cycles of instruction partly derived from Jewish sources; there are echoes of prayers from the liturgy and from writings attributed to the great saints, and reflections of Christian poems and paraphrases of the Resurrection story.

The artists of the catacombs reveal an almost complete lack of emphasis on the humanity and suffering of Jesus. What they stress instead is his power as a divine Saviour. For the most frequently represented scene from his life is the Raising of Lazarus of Bethany from the Dead, of which the only account is in the Fourth Gospel. Already a good many years ago no less than fifty-three portrayals of this theme, accompanied by a gesture of benediction found also on the imperial coinage, were noted in the catacombs of Rome. For what most Christians really wanted from their faith was that they, like Lazarus, should be saved when the time for their Resurrection comes. The Raising of Lazarus meant the Resurrection of themselves. The doctrine of a general Resurrection and bodily survival or ascension of the dead is present in Ignatius and again in the oldest versions of the Creed, of late second-century date. For Christianity satisfied more specifically and invitingly than any other religion the almost universal craving for escape and salvation in the next world from the evils of this. Man, says Arnobius. has received the gift of immortality unknown before -that is the decisive fact, and the relief from a dreadful fear. His pupil Lactantius declares that he himself became Christian because conversion guaranteed him immortality.

* Michael Grant,
The Climax of Rome:
The Final Achievements of the Ancient World,
AD 161-337,

Weidenfeld, 1968; Rev. eds., 19??/1974.

Los Intocables, by Erik Ravelo

Los Intocables, by Erik Ravelo

Παρακλητικός κανόνας των Μανουήλ, Σαβέλ και Ισμαήλ (17 Ιουνίου) που καλεί σε εξύμνηση του ιερού Τετραγράμματου / Paraklesis of Manuel, Sabel, and Ismael (June 17) calling to praise the sacred Tetragrammaton

Ο μαρτυρικός θάνατος σε ξύλο βασανισμού
των αδελφών Μανουήλ, Σαβέλ και Ισμαήλ /

The martyr death on torture stake
of the brothers Manuel, Sabel, and Ismael

 ΚΕΙΜΕΝΟ:

Χαῖρε ᾄδων τὸν Τρισάγιον σὺν Ἀγγέλοις τῷ Χριστῷ,
Χαῖρε μέλπων τὸ Τετράγραμμον σὺν Προφήταις τῷ Θεῷ.


 ΜΕΤΑΦΡΑΣΗ:
Να χαίρεσε τραγουδώντας τον Τρισάγιο μαζί με τους Αγγέλους προς τον Χριστό,
Να χαίρεσε υμνώντας το Τετραγράμματο μαζί με τους Προφήτες προς τον Θεό.

Ακολουθία η θεία ιερά και μαρτυρική
των αγίων και πανενδόξων του Χριστού μεγίστων αθλοφόρων και αυταδέλφων
Μανουήλ, Σαβέλ, και Ισμαήλ
Ήτις πρώτον μεν ερανισθείσα και φιλοπονηθείσα παρά του Μανουήλ Μάνου του Βυζαντίου,
και επιδιορθωθείσα παρά του Πανοσιοσοφολογιωτάτου διδασκάλου και Ιεροκήρυκος
της Αγίας του Χριστού Μεγάλης Εκκλησίας κυρίου Δωροθέου Βουλησμά,
εις φως ήχθη διά δαπάνης του εν μακαρία τη λήξει Ευγενεστάτου Άρχοντος Πολκοβνίκου
και Καβαλλιέρη κυρίου Μανουήλ Μπάλσα.
Νυν δε αυξηθείσα παρά του αυτού ποιητού χάριν ευλαβείας
άπαντα εθεωρήθησαν παρά του Πανιερωτάτου εν Αρχιερεύσι Αγίου
Συνάδων κυρίου κυρίου Νικοδήμου.
Ήδη δεύτερον συν Θεώ Αγίω τύποις καθαρωτέροις και ερυθροίς χαρακτήρσιν εκδίδοται
σπουδή μεν καιαναλώμασι του ταπεινού Ποιητού,
Επιμελεία δε και επιστασία του πανοσιωτάτου εν Ιερομονάχοις
αγίου Αρχιμανδρίτου κυρίου κυρίου Καλλινίκου του εκ Θεσσαλονίκης.
Εν Λειψία της Σαξωνίας,
Εν τη Τυπογραφία Βράϊτκοπφ και Έρτελ, 1815: ΑΩΙΕ',
σ./p. 111.

[BHG 1024]


[Ελληνικά/Greek, PDF]

*

Who & what at Deuteronomy 21:22-23 / Ποιος & τι στο Δευτερονόμιο 21:22, 23

Deuteronomy 21:22-23 features a curious law. The following is the Hebrew text of these two verses, followed by my own (deliberately obscure) translation:

וכי־יהיה באיש חטא משפט־מות והומת ותלית אתו על־עץ
לא־תלין נבלתו על־העץ כי־קבור תקברנו ביום ההוא כי־קללת אלהים תלוי ולא תטמא את־אדמתך אשר יהוה אלהיך נתן לך נחלה

And if a man should be guilty of a capital crime,

1. and he is killed (/ then he should be killed)

2. and you (/ then you / that is, you) hang him upon a tree (/ impale him on a stake / crucify him on a wooden thing)

3. His body shall not remain overnight upon the tree (/ stake / wooden thing)

4. Rather, you shall bury him on that day,
a) for a hanged (/ impaled / crucified) person is cursed by God
b) for a hanged (/ impaled / crucified) person is an affront to God
c) for a blasphemer of God is the one hanging (/ impaled / crucified)

It goes without saying that there are a number of ambiguities within this small section of the Hebrew Bible, not least among which is the nature of the penalty. Is the person being hanged? Are they being impaled? Or are they being crucified? And, furthermore, is this the manner of their execution or is it a post-mortem method of displaying their body? Finally, what is the reason behind needing to take them down? Is it because they cursed God? Is it because the act of hanging them is an affront to God? Or, finally, is it because God will curse them? This final part, the section that was typed in bold, is the subject of this brief analysis.

Before presenting the range of opinions on the topic, a short introduction may be in order for the benefit of anybody who is unfamiliar with the necessary terminology. In brief, the Hebrew clause in question (כי־קללת אלהים תלוי) features what is known as the genitive construct. In English, we represent the genitive case (which indicates, among other things, possession) with the word ‘of’ (the hand of the king) or with an apostrophe-s (the king’s hand). While Israeli Hebrew tends to favour the usage of the particle של (similar to the English ‘of’), Biblical Hebrew is much more terse and utilises, instead, the so-called ‘construct state’.

This is formed by putting two nouns next to each other and modifying the former. In such a construction, the initial noun is known as the regens and the latter noun as the rectum (or, in Hebrew, the נסמך and the נמשל). If I wanted to say “the hand of the king” I would simply say יד המלך (where יד = ‘hand’ and מלך = ‘king’). In some instances, such as in our one above, the initial noun (the regens) undergoes modification. In our case, that modification consists of the addition of a final ת, thus reducing the sort of ambiguity which is found in famous verses like Exodus 34:29-30 , in which one cannot even be sure if what they are dealing with is a genitive in the first place.

The ambiguity in our verse appears to be centred around a different issue: we know that what we have is the genitive construct, but we don’t know whether it constitutes the subjective genitive or the objective genitive. In other words, is the second word of that chain (the rectum) the subject of the clause (ie: the thing doing the verb) or is it the object of the clause (ie: the thing having the verb done to it). The structure of the clause is such that it can go either way, but just to make things absolutely clear, here is the clause again with the relevant section italicised and with the relevant verb in bold:

Subjective Genitive:
a hanged person is cursed by God

Objective Genitive: a blasphemer of God is the one hanging;
a hanged person is an affront to God

As you can see, “cursed by God” has God (the second word within the construct chain) as the subject of the sentence. The word “God” is the word that is doing the verb “cursed”. In that instance, the object of the sentence is “a hanged person”, for it is “a hanged person” that is having the verb “cursed” done to it. In the following two examples, “the one hanging / a hanged person” serves as the subject. In one instance, the verb is translated as “blaspheme” and in the other as “affront”, but in both cases it is the word “God” that is serving as the direct object – ie: the one that is being blasphemed / affronted.

What do the ancient authorities have to say on the topic? Opinions are, as always, divided. For our purposes, we will differentiate between the first and second of our two objective genitives, labelling them Objective Genitive 1 and Objective Genitive 2.

Witnesses to Subjective Genitive
There are three witnesses to the subjective genitive: the Greek Septuagint (LXX), the New Testament and an Aramaic translation known as Targum Neofiti. They are as follows:

1. Deut 21:23 (LXX)
κεκατηραμενος υπο θεον πας ο κρεμαμενος επι ξυλου
“Cursed by God is everyone hanged on a tree” (trans. acc. to Bernstein)

2. Galatians 3:13
χριστος ημας εξηγορασεν εκ της καταρας του νομου γενομενος υπερ ημων καταρα οτι γεγραπται Επικαταρατος πας ο κρεμαμενος επι ξυλου
“Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed [by God] is every one that hangeth on a tree” (KJV)

3. Deut 21:23 (Neofiti)
ליט קדם ה’ כל דצליב
“Cursed before God is everyone who is hanged/crucified” (Bernstein)

Witnesses to Objective Genitive 1
There are five witnesses to the first of our two objective genitives: Josephus, the Mishna, the Babylonian Talmud, Symmachus, and the Syriac Peshitta.

1. Josephus
ο βλασφημησας θεον καταλευσθεις κρεμασθω δι ημερας και ατιμως και αφανως θαπτεσθω
“Let him that blasphemes God, after being stoned, be hanged all day long, and let him be buried dishonorably and ignominiously” (Bernstein)

2. Mishna (mSan 6:4)
כי קללת אלהים תלוי וגו’ כלומר מפני מה זה תלוי מפני שברך את השם ונמצא שם שמים מתחלל
“[The Mishna quotes the Bible and explains]: כי קללת אלהים תלוי. That is to say, why is he hanging? Because he cursed God, and the name of heaven shall be found reviled [if he remains hanging]“.

3. Talmud (bSan 45b)
ת”ר והומת ותלית יכול כל המומתין נתלין ת”ל כי קללת אלהים תלוי מה מקלל זה שבסקילה אף כל שבסקילה דברי רבי אליעזר וחכ”א מה מקלל זה שכפר בעיקר אף כל שכפר בעיקר
“The Rabbis taught: ‘He is killed and you hang him upon a tree [from Deut 21:22]‘. Is it possible that all executed people are hanged? It teaches, ‘כי קללת אלהים תלוי’. Just as this blasphemer [died] by stoning, so too all who are stoned [are hanged afterwards] – the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer. The Sages say – Just as this blasphemer was a heretic, so too are all heretics [hanged after execution]“

4. Deut 21:23 (Symmachus)
οτι δια βλασφημιαν θεου εκρεμασθη
“For on account of blasphemy of God he was hanged” (Bernstein)

5. Deut 21:23 (Peshitta: transliterated here into Aramaic due to typesetting constraints)
דמן דמצחא לאלהא נזדקף
“For an insulter of God is the one hanging (/ impaled / crucified)”

Witnesses to Objective Genitive 2
There are two witnesses to the second of our objective genitives: the Babylonian Talmud and an Aramaic translation known as Targum Pseudo-Jonathan.

1. Talmud (bSan 46b)
תניא אומר ר”מ משלו משל למה הדבר דומה לשני אחים תאומים בעיר אחת אחד מינהו מלך ואחד יצא לליסטיות צוה המלך ותלאוהו כל הרואה אותו אומר המלך תלוי צוה המלך והורידוהו
“It is taught: Rabbi Meir says, ‘By way of a parable, to what may the matter be compared? To two identical brothers in one city. One of them became king and the other turned to crime. By a decree of the king, they hanged him [the king's brother]. Everybody who sees him declares, “The king is hanging!” By a decree of the king, they took him down” – in other words, the act of being hanged causes an affront to God.

2. Deut 21:23 (Pseudo-Jonathan)
ארום קילותא קדם אלהא למצלוב גבר אלהן חובוי גרמו ליה
“Since it is an affront to God to hang a man, save for when his sins cause it for him”

So, it was assumed, ended the range of ancient opinions. There are more sources than these (chief among which are the LXX-recensions of Aquila and Theodotion, as well as the Aramaic translation of Onkelos), but they are reasonably ambiguous and do not serve to adequately communicate the opinions of their authors. There are also several mediaeval opinions (chiefly those of Rashi, Rashbam and Ibn Ezra) but, in each of these cases, it is evident which of the ancient sources they are utilising in order to derive their opinions. There is, however, one more item of relevance from amongst the Dead Sea Scrolls.

The Temple Scroll (11QT LXIV:11-12)

כי מקוללי אלוהים ואנשים תלוי על העץ
“He who was cursed by God and men is hanging on the tree (/ impaled on the stake / crucified on the wooden thing)”

Fascinatingly, this long-absent text from the caves in Qumran has provided us with a second type of subjective genitive! To recap: the ancient sources featured three examples of subjective genitives and seven examples of objective genitives (the latter being divided between two broad types). Now we have a second type of subjective genitive as well and we see that we can actually divide all of our examples into four categories: subjective vs. objective; cause vs. effect. Observe:

Subjective Genitive
Cause: “He who was cursed by God and men” (11QT)
Effect: “He who is hanging is cursed by God” (LXX, Galatians 3:13, Neofiti)
Objective Genitive
Cause: “He who cursed God is hanging” (Josephus, mSan 6:4, bSan 45b, Symmachus, Peshitta)
Effect: “Hanging is an affront to God” (bSan 46b, Pseudo-Jonathan)

So there you have it. Not only is it possible to read the genitive in our clause as being either the subject or the object of the sentence, it is also possible to divide each of those interpretations into two further categories, depending on whether we see the corresponding verb as describing the reason for their punishment or the effect that the punishment has. Now, I wonder which of these four possible interpretations the authors of the Bible actually meant?

* Simon Holloway,
“Insulted by God?: The Anatomy of a Genitive”
«Προσβεβλημένος από τον Θεό;: Η Ανατομία μιας Γενικής»,
Davar Akher: looking for alternative explanations,
December, 21st, 2006.

The sign of the cross: An originally Jewish symbol reinterpreted in Christianity /Το σημείο του σταυρού: Ένα αρχικά ιουδαϊκό σύμβολο επανερμηνευμένο στον χριστιανισμό

* Nicholas De Lange,
Origen and the Jews: Studies in Jewish-Christian Relations in third-century Palestine,
[Ο Ωριγένης και οι Ιουδαίοι: Μελέτες στις Ιουδαιο-Χριστιανικές Σχέσεις στην Παλαιστίνη του τρίτου αιώνα]
Cambridge University Press 1978,
pp./σσ. 116, 117.

@

The “cross” at Herculaneum / Ο «σταυρός» στην Ηράκλεια (Ερκολάνο)

Philip Carrington, The Early Christian Church,
vol. 1: The first Christian century,
Cambridge University Press, p. 176+.

Ένα κιβώτιο στο δάπεδο από κάτω και λίγο προς τη μία πλευρά του «σταυρού» ερμηνεύθηκε ως θυσιαστήριο και ο χώρος κατά συνέπεια ως χριστιανικός τόπος λατρείας. Η περαιτέρω έρευνα, όμως, κατέληξε σε ένα πιο χρηστικό σκοπό: το αποτύπωμα στο σοβά το άφησαν τα υποστηρίγματα ενός επίτοιχου ντουλαπιού ή πιθανόν ένα ράφι ή μια μετωπίδα στηριζόμενη σε ένα όρθιο υποστήριγμα.

Άλλα υποτιθέμενα «τεκμήρια» της χριστιανοσύνης στην Πομπηία και την Ηράκλεια πριν το 79 μ.Χ. επιδέχονται παρόμοια εναλλακτικές, πιθανότερες ερμηνείες.

* Everett Ferguson,
Backgrounds of Early Christianity
[Υπόβαθρα της Πρώτης Χριστιανοσύνης],
Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2003,
p./σ. 590.

Γ. Γρατσέας: Σταύρωση με κρέμασμα στον πάσσαλο / G. Gratseas: Crucifixion by hanging on a stake

 

* Γεώργιος Γρατσέας,
Ο σταυρός:
Σύντομος βιβλικοϊστορική μελέτη,
Αθήναι, 1967,
σ. 33.

Βυζαντινή αυτοκρατορία: Όταν η αποκοπή από την Εκκλησία σήμαινε θανατική ποινή /Byzantine Empire: A time that excommunication by Church meant capital punishment

Giovanni Bellini,
Head of St John the Baptist /
Το κεφάλι του Αγ. Ιωάννη του Βαπτιστή
(1468).

Ως προς τις μεθόδους εκτέλεσης της ποινής του θανάτου στο Βυζάντιο,

«τη θέση του αποκεφαλισμού με πέλεκυ ή ξίφος, που αποτελούσε τον κανόνα,

έπαιρνε όχι σπάνια η σταύρωση, η ρίψη στη θάλασσα ή σε ποταμό

μέσα σε σάκκο με φίδια και άλλα ζώα, η θηριομαχία, ο διαμελισμός από άλογα,

το γδάρσιμο με σιδερένιους όνυχες, ο ενταφιασμός (εν ζωή)».

* Σπύρος Ν. Τρωιάνος (επιμ.),
Έγκλημα και τιμωρία στο Βυζάντιο,

Ίδρυμα Γουλανδρή-Χορν, 1997,

σσ. 100, 27.

The accusation of stepping on the holy cross: A medieval Christian invention /Ο λίβελος της καταπάτησης του ιερού σταυρού: Ένα μεσαιωνικό χριστιανικό εφεύρημα

Francesco Maria Guazzo,
Compendium maleficarum,
ex quo nefandissima in genus humanum opera venefica,
ac ad illa vitanda remedia conspiciuntur,
ex Collegij Ambrosiani typographia (Milán), 1626,
p./σ. 34.
[Latin/Λατινικά, PDF]

Samuelsson: A description of Jesus' crucifixion /Περιγραφή της σταύρωσης του Ιησού

* Gunnar Samuelsson,
Crucifixion in Antiquity
[Η Σταύρωση στην Αρχαιότητα],
Mohr Siebeck, 2011,
p./σ. 296.

Κ. Ζάρρας & D. Daube: Το «σημείο» του Ιεζ 9:4 /The "mark" of Eze 9:4

Παλαιοεβραϊκό τάου (ταυ) /
Paleo Hebrew taw

Καὶ εἶπε πρὸς αὐτόν·
δίελθε μέσην τὴν Ἱερουσαλὴμ
καὶ δὸς τὸ σημεῖον ἐπὶ τὰ μέτωπα τῶν ἀνδρῶν
τῶν καταστεναζόντων καὶ τῶν κατωδυνωμένων
ἐπὶ πάσαις ταῖς ἀνομίαις ταῖς γινομέναις ἐν μέσῳ αὐτῆς.

– Ιεζεκιήλ 9:4, Ο'.


And he said to him,
"Pass through the middle of Ierousalem,
and give the mark upon the foreheads of the men
who sigh and have been afflicted
over all the lawless acts that happen in their midst."

– Ezekiel 9:4, NETS.

 

* Κωνσταντίνος Ζάρρας,

«Η Ιουδαϊκή μυστική παράδοση του Θρόνου»,
Αριστοτέλειο Πανεπιστήμιο Θεσσαλονίκης (ΑΠΘ),
Σχολή Θεολογική, Τμήμα Θεολογίας, 1998,
σ. 49.

 

* David Daube,
The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism,
University of London, Athlone Press, 1956 /
Ayer Publishing, 1973,
pp. 401-403.

The contents of Samuelsson's book "Crucifixion in Antiquity: "An Inquiry into the Background of the New Testament Terminology of Crucifixion"Τα περιεχόμενα του βιβλίου του Σάμιουελσον:"Η Σταύρωση στην Αρχαιότητα: Έρευνα στο Υπόβαθρο της Ορολογίας της Καινής Διαθήκης για τη Σταύρωση"

Previous post / Προηγούμενη ανάρτηση:
Gunnar Samuelsson:
Τι Γνωρίζουμε στην Πραγματικότητα σχετικά με τη Σταύρωση του Ιησού; /
What do we Really Know about the Crucifixion of Jesus?

Contents

CONTENTS 1

ABBREVIATIONS 7

1 Ancient Sources 7

2 Papyri and Non-Literary Sources 14

3 Early Jewish Literature 14

4 Modern Works 15

5 General 18

6 Signs 19

PREFACE 21

CHAPTER ONE – INTRODUCTION 25

1 The Purpose of the Study 26

2 The Scholarly Discussion 27

 2.1 Predecessors 27

2.2 Intermediate Studies 36

2.3 Main Contributors 39

2.4 Recent Studies 48

3 Basic Problems and Method 50

3.1 The Terminology 51

3.2 The Definition 53

3.3 The Basic Questions of the Investigation 56

3.4 Considerations of Theory 57

3.4.1 Philology 58

3.4.2 Semantics 59

4 Content of the Book 63

CHAPTER TWO – GREEK LITERATURE  65

1 The Archaic Era 66

1.1 Homer 66

1.2 Aesop 69

  1.3 Conclusion – The Archaic Era 69

2 Historians of the Classical Era 70

2.1 Herodotus 70

 2.1.1 Herodotus’ Use of  ἀνασταυροῦν 71

 2.1.2 Herodotus’ Use of  ἀνασκολοπίζειν 79

  2.1.3 Herodotus’ Use of Nail Terminology 84

2.1.4 Conclusion – Herodotus and Crucifixion 87

 2.2 Thucydides 92

2.3 Ctesias 94

2.4 Xenophon 97

2.5 Conclusion – Historians of the Classical Era 97

3 Philosophical Literature of the Classical Era 99

3.1 Plato 99

3.2 Aristotle 101

3.3 Conclusion – Philosophical Literature of the Classical Era 102

4 Tragedy, Comedy and Orators of the Classical Era 102

4.1 Aeschylus 102

4.2 Sophocles 104

4.3 Euripides 105

4.4 Demosthenes 108

4.5 Conclusion – Tragedy, Comedy and Orators of the Classical Era 109

5 Greek Historians of the Hellenistic Era 109

5.1 Polybius 109

5.1.1 Undefined Suspension Punishments in Polybius 109

5.1.2 Post-Mortem Suspension in Polybius 111

5.1.3 Ante-Mortem Suspension in Polybius 112

3.1.4 Conclusion – Polybius and Crucifixion 114

5.2 Diodorus Siculus 114

5.2.1 Undefined Suspensions in Diodorus Siculus 115

5.2.2 Post-Mortem Suspensions in Diodorus Siculus 117

5.2.3 Possible Impaling Accounts in Diodorus Siculus 119

5.2.4 Possible Ante-Mortem Suspensions in Diodorus Siculus 120

5.2.5 Suspension by Nailing in Diodorus Siculus 123

5.2.6 Conclusion – Diodorus Siculus and Crucifixion 125

5.3 Conclusion – Historians of the Hellenistic Era 127

6 Papyrus and Fragmentary Texts of the Hellenistic Era127

6.1 Papyrus Hellenica 127

6.2 Alexis 128

6.3 Conclusion – Papyrus and Fragmentary Texts of the Hellenistic Era 129

7 Historians of the Roman Era 129

7.1 Strabo 129

7.1.1 Suspension Texts in Strabo 129

7.1.2 Conclusion – Strabo and Crucifixion 133

7.2 Dionysius of Halicarnassus 133

7.3 Flavius Josephus 135

7.3.1 Texts Without Indications of the Suspension Form 136

7.3.2 Texts With Indications of the Suspension Form 142

7.3.3 Conclusion – Josephus and Crucifixion 153

7.4 Plutarch 156

7.4.1 Undefined Suspensions in Plutarch 156

7.4.2 Suspension Accounts With Additional Information159

7.4.3 Nailing Accounts in Plutarch 164

7.4.4 Plutarch’s Use of σταυρός 167

7.4.5 Conclusion – Plutarch and Crucifixion 171

7.5 Appian 172

7.5.1 Appian’s Use of σταυροῦν and σταυρός 173

7.5.2 Appian’s Use of κρεμαννύναι 174

7.5.3 Conclusions – Appian and Crucifixion 178

7.6 Conclusion – Historians of the Roman Era 179

8 Philosophical and Poetical Authors of the Roman Era 180

8.1 Philo Judaeus 180

8.1.1 Undefined Suspensions in Philo 180

8.1.2 Suspensions by Nailing in Philo 185

8.1.3 Ante-Mortem Suspensions in Philo 186

8.1.4 Conclusion – Philo and Crucifixion 188

8.2 Chariton 189

8.2.1 The Suspension of Theron 189

8.2.2 The Suspension of Chaereas and His Cellmates 190

8.2.3 A Recapitulation of the Suspensions 191

8.2.4 Chariton’s Use of σταυρός 192

8.2.5 Conclusion – Chariton and Crucifixion 194

8.3 Conclusion – Philosophical and Poetical Literature of the Roman Era 194

9 Conclusion – The Greek Literature 195

9.1 The Terminology 195

9.1.1 The Verbs 195

9.1.2 The Nouns 198

9.1.3 The Terminological Problem 200

9.2 The Punishment  200

CHAPTER THREE – LATIN LITERATURE205

1 Historians 206

1.1 Gaius Iulius Caesar 206

1.2 Gaius Sallustius Crispus 207

1.3 Titus Livius 208

1.3.1 The Case Against Horatius 208

1.3.2 Livy’s Use of crux 211

1.3.3 Conclusion – Livy 214

1.4 Valerius Maximus 214

  1.4.1 Conclusion – Valerius Maximus 217

1.5 Cornelius Tacitus  217

1.5.1 Tacitus’ Use of Assumed Crucifixion Terminology 217

1.5.2 Conclusion – Tacitus 223

1.6 Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus 223

1.6.1 Suetonius Use of crux and Accompanying Verbs 223

1.6.2 The Ancient Custom 226

1.6.3 Conclusion – Suetonius 226

1.7 Clodius Licinius  227

2 Playwrights 228

2.1 Titus Maccius Plautus 228

2.1.1 Conclusion – Plautus 232

2.2 Publius Terentius Afer 233

3 Rhetorical Texts 233

3.1 Marcus Tullius Cicero 233

3.1.1 Cicero’s Oration Against Gaius Verres 234

3.1.2 Cicero’s Defense of Rabirius 240

3.1.3 Conclusion – Cicero 242

3.2 Lucius Annaeus Seneca (the Elder) 242

3.3 Lucius Annaeus Seneca (the Younger) 244

3.3.1 Conclusion – Seneca the Younger 250

3.4 Gaius Plinius Secundus 251

3.5 Marcus Fabius Quintilianus 253

3.6 Quintus Curtius Rufus 254

4 Poetry 255

4.1 Gaius Valerius Catullus 255

4.2 Quintus Horatius Flaccus 256

4.3 Publius Ovidius Naso 256

4.4 Marcus Valerius Martialis 257

4.5 Decimus Iunius Iuvenalis 258

5 Inscription259

6 Conclusion – The Latin Literature 262

6.1 The Terminology 262

6.2 The Punishment 265

CHAPTER FOUR – THE OLD TESTAMENT AND

RELATED LITERATURE 269

1The Old Testament 271

1.1 Genesis 271

1.2 Numeri 274

1.3 Deuteronomy 277

1.4 Joshua 278

1.5 The Books of Samuel 280

1.6 Ezra 284

1.7 Esther 286

1.8 Lamentation 289

2 The Deuterocanonical Texts 291

3 The Dead Sea Scrolls 291

4 The Apocryphal Old Testament 295

5 Conclusion – Old Testament and Related Literature 296

5.1 The Terminology 296

5.2 The Punishment 299

CHAPTER FIVE – THE EXECUTION OF JESUS 301

1 The Gospels 302

1.1 Jesus Foretells His Passion 302

1.2 To Carry One’s Own Cross 305

1.3 A People’s Call for Execution  307

1.4 The Road to Golgotha  309

1.5 The Execution 312

1.6 The Criminals  314

1.7 The Mocking of Jesus  315

1.8 The Death of Jesus  316

1.9 The Aftermaths of the Death of Jesus 318

2 Acts 320

3 The Epistles Attributed to Paul 321

4 The Epistles Not Attributed To Paul 325

5 Revelation 326

6 Conclusion – The Execution of Jesus 327

CHAPTER SIX – DISCUSSION WITH REFERENCE

LITERATURE AND SCHOLARS 331

1 Discussion One – The Definition of Crucifixion 331

1.1 An Execution 332

1.2 In the Strict Sense, an Execution 333

1.3 Not Necessarily an Execution 335

1.4 Uncertainty, but Nevertheless a Crucifixion 336

1.5 A Better Way: A Suspension Among Others 338

1.6 Conclusion – The Definition of Crucifixion 342

2 Discussion Two – The Terminology of Crucifixion 342

2.1 The Greek Terminology 343

2.1.1 ἀνασταυροῦν and ἀνασκολοπίζειν 343

2.1.2 σταυροῦν 346

2.1.3 σταυρὀς 349

2.1.4κρεμαννύναι 352

2.2 The Latin Terminology 353

2.3 The Hebrew-Aramaic Terminology 354

2.4 Conclusion – The Terminology of Crucifixion 356

2.4.1 Verbs of the σταυρ-Stem 356

2.4.2 ἀνασκολοπίζειν 357

2.4.3 σταυρός 358

2.4.4 κρεμαννύναι 359

2.4.5 crux 360

2.4.6 patibulum 360

2.4.7 The Hebrew-Aramaic Terminology 361

2.4.8 The Terminology of Crucifixion 361

3 Discussion Three – The Depiction of Crucifixion 362

3.1 The Scholarly Contributions 362

3.2 Evaluation of the Scholarly Contributions 369

3.3 A Depiction of Crucifixion 372

4 Test Case I – The Archaeological Challenge 373

5 Test Case II – Challenging the Basic Theory 374

CHAPTER SEVEN – ANSWERS TO THE BASIC QUESTIONS

OF THE INVESTIGATION 379

BIBLIOGRAPHY 383

1 Primary Sources (Texts and Translations) 383

2 Reference Works 396

3 Secondary Literature 400

4 Internet 413

Source / Πηγή:

www.exegetics.org