I will forgive your note regarding "banal criticism" to perhaps a language barrier. My comments supported your argument. I do realize that quoting Leolaia is once removed from original sources, but she quotes so extensively and to thoroughly that I thought you would appreciate the understanding she brings of the use of the cross during Jesus' time.
The "patibulum" : a fragile theory !
by TheFrench 112 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
TheFrench
jgnat, sorry. I've not understood. Indeed, my english is not great.
I do realize that quoting Leolaia is once removed from original sources, but she quotes so extensively and to thoroughly that I thought you would appreciate the understanding she brings of the use of the cross during Jesus' time.
Yes, I appreciate the study Leolaia.
But I studied myself the problem and I can not get the same conclusions that Leolaia. Unpretentious, I can prove now that the "patibulum" as systematic prior to the crucifixion is a theory extremely fragile.
I started to do it and I await the response Leolaia to continue to do so.
-
-
jeckle
oh one other point : a stake is an ancient phallic symbol! So I guess the stake theory is another watchtower PHALLACY( hehehehe get it!)
It was a CROSS shaped torture device it's been argued to death. The dubs have to convince theirselves not me.I wanted to say a big giant flaming neon cross out of sarcasm but I didnt want to be too rude.
-
chasson
Sorry Leolaia, i have inspired my jw's friend Jehu on my forum (who is called "The French" here), i have said to him several days ago what he has said here:
In the texts of Plautus, for instance, the few times ( very rare : twice, I think ) where " patibulum " and " crux " are in the same text, there is no evidence (h ence my " explicitly") that this " patibulum " is the crossbar which is placed on a pole ! Same for the other Latin texts. If not, prove me wrong, I expect that. Really...
So i cite myself in french in an answer to "the_French"/Jéhu the 06/07/11 on my forum , one week before the arrival of "The-French" here:
On pourra rétorquer qu'il n'est pas dit que le supplicié est cloué sur la croix avec le patibulum, bref qu'on a eu l'idée après seulement à partir du deuxième siècle de clouer le supplicié avec le patibulum, (ce morceau de bois où il avait les mains attachés en forme de croix), cela voudrait donc dire que les auteurs chrétiens grecs qui n'ont pas de mots pour différencier "patibulum" et "crux" et qui ont mis "stauros" pour les deux, se seraient trompés, le stauros (patibulum) qu'a porté Jésus, il n'est pas mort dessus, et n'était donc pas le stauros (crux. croix ou poteau en français donc) sur laquelle on l'a suspendu. C'est un peu fort de café.
Well, in a certain manner, our Jw apologist is citing an apostate
-
TheFrench
On pourra rétorquer qu'il n'est pas dit que le supplicié est cloué sur la croix avec le patibulum, bref qu'on a eu l'idée après seulement à partir du deuxième siècle de clouer le supplicié avec le patibulum, (ce morceau de bois où il avait les mains attachés en forme de croix), cela voudrait donc dire que les auteurs chrétiens grecs qui n'ont pas de mots pour différencier "patibulum" et "crux" et qui ont mis "stauros" pour les deux, se seraient trompés, le stauros (patibulum) qu'a porté Jésus, il n'est pas mort dessus, et n'était donc pas le stauros (crux. croix ou poteau en français donc) sur laquelle on l'a suspendu. C'est un peu fort de café.
The punishment of "patibulum" or "furca" does not necessarily lead to the punishment of the cross, to death. Therefore, both punishments are different. Hence my remark : " there is no evidence (h ence my " explicitly") that this " patibulum " is the crossbar which is placed on a pole". Simply.
-
chasson
Also, I found out, that when koine-speaking authors were referring to patibulum they used 'xulon', not 'stauros' (particulary because the very root of the word stauros means 'stay'; 'stay' and 'stauros' share the same Proto-Indo-European root 'sta-' and have nothing to do with horizontal bar, but with something vertically staying). For instance: Plutarch, Coriolanus 24.4-5.
I Just found in this Plutarch's text, that "Furca" in latin could be translate by "sterigma" in greek.
The use of "xylon" (piece of wood) just before this passage, seems to reflect a difficulty of Plutarch to explain what is a furca, this difficulty is vividly represented in the french translation: " lui faire porter un de ces bois fourchus qui servent d'appui au timon d'un chariot,"
-
chasson
The punishment of "patibulum" or "furca" does not necessarily lead to the punishment of the cross, to death. Therefore, both punishments are different. Hence my remark : " there is no evidence (h ence my " explicitly") that this " patibulum " is the crossbar which is placed on a pole". Simply.
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 !!!
Now concerning the punishment of "furca", i agree that it has clearly evolved during time, it was at the beginning (and during a long time) a separate punishment from the punishment of the cross.
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... 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 !!)
-
chasson
http://www.fastionline.org/docs/FOLDER-it-2008-127.pdf
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.
-
chasson
To prove that the Pozzuoli's graffito is not a fake, you can simply go to the website of the Pozzuoli's city, it is not more difficult than that:
http://www.comune.pozzuoli.na.it/resources/documents/beni%20culturali/0010ca.htm
You have a photo of it:
So, contrary as your assertions on my forum, that the proofs of the veracity of this graffito, are "fragile", this graffito is well known in the city of Pozzuoli, as to be used as online information for tourists.