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

1. I agree with you.

2. I agree with you less. Let me explain:

I go back to Justin and Nonius. The first is a Roman historian "of uncertain date," second to third century according to a dictionary (The Oxford Companion to Classical Literature). From Wikipedia even considering the fourth century. The second "first half of the fourth century AD". So I think Justin and almost contemporary Nonius even if all this is of little importance. Nonius refers to previous texts in his time (and that of Justin) to define the meaning of the Latin word patibulum.

You said that patibulum does not always mean the same thing as crux. It's true. It has the sense of furca in the works of Plautus. Nonius states that patibulum can refer to the bar used to lock a door. But it does not say that it is part of the cross ... Nonius clearly says: "patibulum is crux". For him, and therefore his contemporaries, patibulum is a synonym for crux. If this word had the meaning of cross beam (part of cross), Nonius would have mentioned it not? No doubt.

Where I am not following you is when you understand "patibulo suffixus est" as "tied or nailed to a horizontal beam." For what it proves to us that the patibulum is a horizontal beam in the text of Justin? It seems to me that without indications, we must understand "patibulo" in the sense of "cruce", a word found in the context. Moreover, we also know the term "cruci suffixos" (Cicero, Against Piso, 18, 18). I will not go further. Because the details are given in the text (your point 4) do not allow to go to a serious hypothesis, to me.

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

Ed, I'll answer but before going any further, could you tell us what you think of the execution of Jesus? You think he was nailed to a pole or 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

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.

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

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.

Right ! We arrive to the same conclusion.

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.

two remarks :

1. You do a link between this representation and latin texts which tell the story of Atilius. But earlier you said : "possibly the tomb of Atilius A.f. Cn Calatinus". So > interpretation. Any conclusion from this interpretation is risky.

2. You cited Justin. 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 Nonius who explains 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".

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

Yes, the thesis of Chapman is interesting. For instance, Chapman deals of the various interpretations of Dt 21:22,23. And do you know what he explains about it ? Thanks to 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... Strangely, Jews have seen the application of this law in the execution of Jesus (for the jew vision, see Acts, Galatians, Talmud).

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

To EdLouisiana : where do you see 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

The Lex Puteoli Inscription (first century BC) is somewhat ambiguous because it is unclear whether it describes patibulum-bearing or workers bringing patibula to the execution site: "Whoever will want to exact punishment on a male slave or female slave at private expense, as he who wants the punishment to be inflected, he exacts the punishment in this manner: If he wants to bring the patibulum to the cross (in crucem patibul[um] agere), the contractor will have to provide wooden beams (asseres), chains, and cords for the floggers and the floggers themselves. And anyone who will want to exact punishment will have to give four sesterces for each of the workers who bring the patibulum (patibul[um] ferunt) and for the floggers and also for the executioner. Whenever a magistrate exacts punishment at public expense, so shall he decree; and whenever it will have been ordered to be ready to carry out the punishment, the contractor will have gratis to set up crosses (cruces statuere), and will have gratis to provide nails, pitch, wax, candles, and those things which are essential for such matters" (II.8-12). As you point out, this may simply be a matter of workers bringing the patibulum along with other materials to set up the execution apparatus, in which case it wouldn't refer to patibulum-bearing. Even if this is the case, this is still a matter of the patibulum being brought to the crux, which is itself set up (statuere) at the execution site, so it is clear here that patibulum is not synonymous with crux. But John Cook (NT, 2008) makes a pretty convincing case that the inscription refers to patibulum-bearing by the victim. The verb agere, which is loosely translated "bring" by Cook, has more of a sense of "impel, push", which is intelligible in the case of forced patibulum-bearing involving floggers (indeed, it is the usual word for referring to the driving of animals under a harness or yoke). The floggers may thus have been the workers who move or impel the patibulum to the cross by flogging the slave carrying it. Since patibul[um] is incomplete in the text, it is also possible that the word was patibulatum and the sense is "If he wants to impel the person attached to the patibulum to the cross". The phrase in crucem agere, in fact, occurs elsewhere, where it pertains to the person condemned to the cross: "You dared to lead someone off to the cross (in crucem tu agere ausus es)" (Cicero, In Verram 2.5.163), "He was led off to the cross (in crucem ageretur)" (Cicero, In Verram 2.5.165), "The student is led off to the cross (agitur paedagogus in crucem)" (Calpurnius Flaccus, Declamationum 23), "A prostitute leads off to the cross her slave who is in love with her (meretrix servum suum amantem se in crucem agit)" (Calpurnius Flaccus, Declamationum 33), etc.

In this inscription, the term "crucem patibulum" is an asyndetic group, ordinary construction in epigraphy, which "peut sembler faire difficulté" (may seem to challenge) as indicated by F. Hinard and J. C. Dumont (supra, p. 117) in their book.

In their translation, they are choosing to introduce into this expression the conjunction "and" translating the phrase "si in cruc(em) patibul(...) agere uolet" by "s'il commande une exécution par la croix et le patibulum" (if command execution by the cross and patibulum). Two instruments are associated here, sending each to a punishment.

Translators J. F. Gardiner and T. Wiedemann introduce, for their part, the conjunction "or" and translate the passage thus: "If he wants to put the slave on the cross or fork". Here, the master can choose between two instruments, two possible punishments (crux or patibulum). Although the meaning of the phrase is different, even opposite, neither is an incorrect translation, the asyndetic group requires, indeed, restore a conjunction to make the text clearer.

G. Cook gives yet another translation: "If he wants to bring the patibulum to the cross". His translation draws attention to the fact "to bring the patibulum to the cross". Cook goes beyond the Latin text. He is in the interpretation. Hinard et Dumont see in this passage as a possible reference to this custom, going beyond their translation of the Lex Puteoli, but they are openly attempting to interpret the text. If this translation of Cook may agree with the context close, without much difficulty, it does not argue for the belief that the wearing of "patibulum" is a systematic prior to the crucifixion. Why?

The Lex Puteoli concerns the situation where a master wants to torment his slave: "Whoever Will want to exact punishment (" supplic(ium) ") were male slave or female slave at private Expense". Lines 8 and 12 show that the punishment is the crux.

The text specifies the procedure: "as he who wants the punishment to be inflected, he exacts the punishment in this manner (ita) : If he wants to bring the patibulum to the cross". The conjunction "if" (lat. si) suggests the possibility. However, the entire text does not appear that to use a "crux" as a possibility: "the contractor will have gratis to set up crosses". Perhaps only the "patibulum" is optional. It is, moreover, suggest the sentence Cook: "If he wants to bring the patibulum..."

This law regulates the tortures in two settings: private and public. Note that the execution is carried out as public is clearly on a crux without any mention of patibulum, unlike the execution is carried out in private: "Whenever a magistrate exacts punishment at public expense, so shall he decree; and whenever it will have been ordered to be ready to carry out the punishment, the contractor will have gratis to set up crosses, and will have gratis to provide nails, pitch, wax, candles, and those things which are essential for such matters".

It may also question whether two different punishments (see supplies each time).

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

The next (for Leolaia) :

Furthermore, if the patibulum did come to stand in for the term crux as I have argued above, then it would have to have been used in the course of crucifixion. This would explain why the patibulum was so frequently mentioned in connection with crucifixion. In the case of Plautus, we have three explicit references to patibulum-bearing. So in the passage from Miles Gloriosus, 359 quoted above, the slave Sceledrus is threatened while blocking access to a room with outstretched arms: "I believe you'll be walking (eundum) out of the city gate (ex portam) in that pose very soon, hands spread out as you carry (habebis) the patibulum". Here the outstretched pose is one Sceledrus would have while walking and carrying the patibulum on the way to his execution. The phrase ex portam especially raises the spectre of exeuction because the ancient Roman custom was to conduct executions outside the Esquiline Gate (Tacitus, Annales 2.32), and it was where bodies would be left to be consumed by vultures and wolves (Horace, Epodes 5.97-102). Elsewhere Plautus used the phrase ex portam with similar effect: "It's true, he'll see you dead, burning outside the gate (videre ardentem te extra portam mortuam)" (Casina 2.6). Moreover, Sceledrus connects this threat to crucifixion when he responds after a second threat: "Stop threatening me, I know that the cross will be my tomb (scio crucem futuram mihi sepulcrum). It where all my ancestors met their ends: my father, my grandfather, my great-grandfather, my great-great-grandfather. My eyes cannot be torn out by any more threats of yours" (Miles Gloriosus, 372-375). Thus within the story, the character threatened with patibulum-bearing understood it as pertaining to crucifixion. And just before this scene, immediately before the entrance of the character who would threaten him with patibulum punishment, Sceledrus stated his fear that his master would "put me up on the cross (sustollat in crucem)" (line 309). So it is clear here that patibulum-bearing is connected with crucifixion. The second reference to patibulum-bearing in Plautus can be found in Mostellaria, where the jealous slave Grumio threatens his rival Tranio: "Oh sieve of the executioners (carnuficium cribrum), I believe they will pierce you with goads through the streets (per vias) with you attached to a patibulum (patibulatum), as soon as the old man returns" (Mostellaria, 55-57). The reference to executioners indicates that capital punishment is in view here. Then in line 352, Tranio announces the return of his master Theopropides (the old man referred to by Grumio) and he is sure that he is doomed to execution, just as predicted by Grumio (erus advenit peregre, periit Tranio). Then he offers money to anyone at the party willing to take his place: "I'll give a talent to that man who shall be the first to run to the cross (in crucem excucurrerit) for me but on the condition that his arms and legs are double-nailed (offigantur bis pedes bis brachia)" (lines 359-360). The context thus relates Tranio's expected carrying of a patibulum through the streets with Tranio's expected hastening forwards (excurrere) to the crux where his arms and legs would be nailed. And then at that end of the play, Theopropides himself declares that Tranio would be crucified: "I'll have you carried to the cross (ego ferare faxo in crucem), as you deserve" (line 1133). All of this shows that Grumio's reference to patibulum-bearing pertains to crucifixion. The third reference is in the play Carbonaria (Fragmenta, 2): "Let him carry his patibulum through the city (patibulum ferat per urbem), and then be fastened to the cross (deinde adfigatur cruci)". This makes explicit what was implicit in the other two passages; patibulum-bearing for the punished slave ends with crucifixion. The historian Licinius (first century BC) also made a similar comment: "Bound to patibula they are led around (deligati ad patibulos circumferuntur) and they are fastened to the cross (et cruci defigntur)" (Historiae Romanae, 21). If these people are fastened to the cross while still bound to patibula, then this implies the addition of the patibula to the cross; there is no mention here of their removal. Since Plautus describes patibulum-bearing as involving a pose of hands spread out to the side, the addition of the patibulum to the cross would produce the same pose on the cross itself, which is precisely the kind of pose described in crucifixion on a stauros or crux by Seneca, Lucian, Tertullian, and others.Mostellaria 55-57.

1) The carnifex ("executioner") serves to torture. Torture conducted by the carnifex does not systematically lead to death. J. C. Dumont, for example, explains that a carnifex and his aides were necessary in a simple setting to the question, quaestio per tormenta - Libitina, Undertakers and torture in Campania at the time of Augustus, p. 90

2) In the context Tranion insult Grumion by mean this word : "furcifer" (69). Grumion retorts: "By Jove, here's a name, I believe, soon to be yours" (70). This phrase echoes the threat that the farmer formula lines 55-57. Thus, "patibulum" means here the sense of "furca" as an insult, "furcifer" (lit. "one who bears the furca") is awarded to any slave who suffers the torment of the furca.

In his works, Plautus employs patibulum and furca in the same sens. Because :
1) as patibulum, the furca is carried by slaves : "patibulum ferat"/"furcam feras" - Cabonaria, fr. II ; Casina, II, 6
2) the slave's arms are stretched out on the patibulum : "dispessis manibus", Miles Gloriosus, II, 4. It's the same thing with furca : "Those who led this slave to torment him with both arms extended [χε?ρας ?ποτε?ναντες] with a piece of wood." - Denis of Halicarnassus, Roman Antiquities, Book VII, 69
3) The prisoner is led through the city "per urbem"/"in urbem" - Cabonaria, fr. II ; Casina, II, 7
4) On the piece of wood, the victim is beaten : "forabunt stimulis"/"caesum virgis" - Mostellaria, I, 1 ; Menaechmi, V, 5
4) The punishment sometimes before the crux. - Cabonaria, fr. II ; Persa, V, 5
5) but not always. - Mostellaria, I, 1 ; Menaechmi, V, 5
6) Anyone who suffers this punishment is called "furcifer". - Mostellaria, I, 1 ; Plutarch, Roman Questions, 280

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

Is the word "stauros" in the Gospels, it is not a source of misunderstanding?

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

There seems to be a lot of arm chair scholars here. But history does show that the Romans executed people, including Christians on crosses. Yes some crosses did not look like what we view as the cross today. Some were shaped in the shape of an "X" and others looked like an upper case "T". However, as far as I can see, all indications show that Jesus was exectued on a cross with a cross beam. For one thing, the bible speaks of multiple nails being used in Jesus hands, which would not be the case if he was nailed to an upright stake. John 20:25. It also speaks about the arms being stretched out, not upwards which would be the case if Jesus was nailed to a stake without a crossbeam. John 21:18-19

John 20:25 : precision " nails" does not exclude the hypothesis of the post. Technically , a man can be nailed to a pole with two nails at the wrists , a nail in each hand , for example (see the first page of the book of Fulda ). We know nothing of the methods of fixing . Also, when WT represents Jesus nailed to a pole with a single nail which pierces the wrists , it does not pretend to make a historically accurate representation . It seems that you missed .

John 21:18-19 : most commentators have given to see here a foreshadowing of Peter crucified on a cross . This simply refers to the passivity of a man who is led to execution .

It was already brought out, but Leolaia showed that the comment by French was wrong in that the early church fathers DID speak of Jesus being nailed to a cross with a patibulum. Tertullian did KNOW what he was talking about when he used the word "patibulum". In Apologeticus 3/23/6 he says that the Greek letter "T" (or TAU) had the appearance of the cross that Jesus was hung on.

Tertullian has already used " patibulum" in his works but each time it is impossible to tell in what sense ( cross or c rossbeam ). However , when Tertullian defines the different parts of the cross , he never uses " patibulum", which would be the name used to name the crossbeam , but each time Tertullian uses the word "antenna ". This is somewhat strange , no?

Also, PSacramento brought up a good point about the weight of the cross. There was also a study done, if memory serves correctly, that shows that Jesus wouldn't have been able to survive as long as he did with his arms straight up because he would've suffocated too quickly. Or maybe i got that backwards.

I have already answered this argument does not hold. Besides, if I took the time, I could show you that this experience is rather favorable to death on a pole, rather than death on a cross. But for now this is not the main problem.

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

Another matter questioned in your response is the connection between the carrying of the patibulum and crucifixion, whether these are two separate punishments such that the patibulum was carried by the prisoner on a separate occasion, or was not itself used in the execution. This is supported by the observation that the punishment of patibulum-bearing did not always result in capital punishment. This last point is something of a non sequitur since no one is claiming that patibulum-bearing always concluded with execution (nor is it claimed that crucifixion always involved the use of a crossbeam). In fact, my previous post made mention of the fact that the humiliation of slaves by compelling them to publically carry a beam of wood or a furca (probably originally a fork used with wagons, cf. also the separate terms used to refer to the bearer: furcifer vs. patibulatum) existed in pre-Republican times and antedated the Roman adoption of crucifixion as a form of capital punishment. As Dionysius of Halicarnassus described this practice: "A Roman citizen of no obscure station, having ordered one of his slaves to be put to death, ... directed them to drag him through the Forum and every other conspicuous part of the city as they whipped him ... having stretched out both his hands and fastened them to a piece of wood (tas kheiras apoteinantes amphoteras kai xulò prosdèsantes) which extended across his chest and shoulders as far as his wrists (para ta sterna te kai tous òmous kai mekhri tòn karpòn), they followed him tearing his naked body with whips" (Antiquitates Romanae, 7.69.1-2). Although the practice was later combined with crucifixion, it did not necessarily accompany it. But there is sufficient evidence to show that there was a close connection between patibulum-bearing and crucifixion. First of all, we see above that ancient writers mentioned the hands-outstretched-to-the-sides pose both in references to the carrying of the patibulum (as is the case in Plautus) and in references to the victim mounted or nailed to the cross (as is the case in Seneca, Lucian, Lactantius, Augustine, etc.); this is a continuity that is naturally explained by the addition of the patibulum to the cross with the victim attached to it. This is not merely hypothetical since we have already seen that Ambrose refers to Jesus carrying the "patibulum of the cross (patibulum crucis)" (De Abraham 1.8.72) as well as being nailed to the patibulum (patibulo adfixus) and suspended from it (in patibulo pendere) (Adversus Nationes 1.40, 62). That Ambrose pictured Jesus as carrying the crossbeam is also suggested by his statement that "because his neck was tender and not stiff (tener non dura cervice) but he knew the yoke of the law (iugum legis) he did not refuse the patibulum of the cross (crucis patibulum)" (De Abraham 1.5.40). The metaphor here pictures the patibulum as resting on Jesus' neck which is what would be case if it was supported laterally across his shoulders rather than over a single shoulder as depicted in late Christian art. Moreover, the expression iugum legis, while drawing on a biblical expression, evokes the use of iugum as a term for the crossbeam of the cross (see the citation above from Minucius Felix, Octavius 29.6). Ambrose uses the same metaphor in De Patriarchis, 2.9 when he makes reference to the necessity to "carry the yoke of Christ (iugum Christi portare) without a stiff neck (dura nesciens cervice)".

Already, it is not certain that "patibulum" and "furca" refer to two different pieces of wood. If these terms refer to two very different pieces, we must prove that he is not the same punishment. Because the similarities are striking. So many scholars believe that Plautus uses "patibulum" and "furca" interchangeably in his plays.

This confusion of terms is found in the different versions of the history of the slave punished by his master on the day of the opening games. Greek authors (Denis, Plutarch, etc..) And Latin authors (Titus, Macrobius, etc..) Tells this story. It is interesting to note that some Latin authors, employs "furca," and others "patibulum" to describe the piece of wood on which the slave is attached. Why if they are two separate punishments known? At least because this is the same punishment.

(At this stage, we can notice that the treatment reserved to Jesus is quite different: Jesus carries a piece of wood, "stauros", but it probably is not attached thereto, Jesus will even helped carry the beam by a passing man, Jesus is not taken in the streets for people laughed at him, Jesus is not whipped while carrying the "stauros")

Also, one thing is notable authors of antiquity often explain the punishment of the furca, when they define the word "furcifer", but not the patibulum (eg Plutarch, Isidore). It does not remember any of the patibulum punishment. Why? A satisfactory explanation is that the punishment of "patibulum" is the punishment of "furca" which remains in the memories.