(Part 6d of the
series: Crucifixion the Bodily Support)
C. Other Ancient Non-Christians’ Statements.
The last two we
will look at are the Milesian Apollo and porphyry (234 – 305 CE) who wrote his Against the Christians in several books about
280 CE. One refers to the crucifixion of Jesus and the other the crucifixion of
Peter using cognates of the word σκόλοψ. This word, meaning
“anything pointed”
Apollo. Source: Wikipedia. |
C.1.The Milesian Apollo.
In
the ancient world before Christianity came of age and displaced everything,
there were oracles all over the place. There were the Sibylline Oracles, the
Oracles of Delphi, Diana of the Ephesians and the Oracles of Apollo, for
starters. Well one Apollo was quoted by Lactantius (240-320 CE):
On
which account the Milesian Apollo, being asked whether He was God or man,
replied in this manner: “He was mortal as to His body, being wise with wondrous
works; but being taken with arms under Chaldean judges, with nails and the
cross He endured a bitter end.” In the first verse he spoke the truth, but he
skilfully deceived him who asked the question, who was entirely ignorant of the
mystery of the truth. For he appears to have denied that He was God.
Lactantius, Divine
Institutes 4.13 (New Advent)
The original reads
thusly:
Memimit et Apollo in Oraculo quopiam de Christo:
Θνητός ἰήν κατά σάρκα, σοφός, τερατώδεσιν
ἔργοις,
Ἀλλ᾽
ὑπό χαλδαίων κριτῶν ὅπλοις συναλωβεις (?)
Γόμφοις καί σκολόπεσσι πικρήν ἀνέτλησε
τελουτην
Lactantius Divinibus
Institutionibus 4.13 (Documenta Catholica Omnia)
If we go to the notes of the linked PDF, we find the Latin of this oracle reads:
Mortalis erat
corpore, sapiens portentificus (a) operibus
Sed sub Chandaeis
judicibus armis comprehensus
Clavisque et
cruce amarum toleravit finem.
Lactantius Divinibus
Institutionibus 4.13, v.n. Milesins
Apollo. (Documenta Catholica Omnia)
And
it translates as follows:
Memimit
and Apollo said something about Christ in an oracle:
He
was mortal in body, wise, with pretentious works,
But
under Chaldean judges with arms he was apprehended.
With
nails and with the crux he endured a bitter end.
Justus
Lipsius has the last line translation as follows: Claves et palis mortem exantlauit (exanclavit): “With nails and
with pales he endured a bitter end.” (Justus Lipsius, De Cruce,) Keep in mind that σκολόπεσσι translates as “with
stakes, thorns, pointed objects” yet the nails are excluded because they are indicated
by the Greek word γόμφοις. Yet both places
the Latin does not read, spinis (with
thorns). One reads cruce (with the crux)
and the other, palis (with pales). So
it seems to me that there is something going on here that has been overlooked
here. It might not be the crown of thorns – the Greek for “crown of thorns” is ἀκάνθινον
στέφανον:
a crown or wreath made of thorny twigs of the acantha bush, Acanthus
spinosus. So it is very much possible the oracle is also or instead referring
to the acuta crux of the Roman
suspension device, the sharp points of the nails and the point of the thrusted
lance (although the last is dubious, because he was supposed to have been
stabbed with it after he endured
that bitter death.
C.2. Porphyry.
Porphyry was an opponent of Christianity and a stout defender of the Panhellenic Paganism. He had crafted volumes of works, and a lot have been lost from his anti-Christian polemics. But quite a bit has been preserved in various Church Fathers, mostly post-Nicene, as quotes to be refuted or strongly criticized.
C.2.1. The
Iron-Bound Death.
Porphyry,
ἐκ
λογίων φιλοσοφίας (Philosophy from Oracles),
quoted in St
Augustine, Civitas Dei 19.23 (New Advent) (The Latin Library), he
collects and comments upon the responses which he pretends were uttered by the
gods concerning divine things, he says— I give his own words as they have been
translated from the Greek: “To one who inquired what god he should propitiate
in order to recall his wife from Christianity, Apollo replied in the following
verses.”
“You
will probably find it easier to write lasting characters on the water, or
lightly fly like a bird through the air, than to restore right feeling in your
impious wife once she has polluted herself. Let her remain as she pleases in
her foolish deception, and sing false laments to her dead God, who was
condemned by right-minded judges, and perished ignominiously by a violent [an
iron bound] death.”
Pergat
quo modo uult inanibus fallacis persuerans et lamentari fallaciis mortuum Deum
cantans, quem iudicibus recta sentientibus perditum pessima in speciosis ferro
vincta mors interfecit.
(Let
her go on in what manner she pleases convinced in [her] vain deceptions, and
singing lamentations to a God who died in delusions, who was done away with by
a panel of judges that had judged wisely, executed [him] in his prime [with]
the very worst death, restrained with iron.)
Then…
he goes on to say: “In these verses Apollo exposed the incurable corruption of
the Christians, saying that the Jews, rather than the Christians, recognized
God.”
So here Porphyry repeats the oracle's claim that the sort of crucifixion allegedly suffered by Jesus was then considered the worst death, bound with iron. Certainly for the Roman Empire of his day, where it was designed to be painful to the extreme for days on end, and utterly shameful.
C.2.2. Nailed to
a Cross and Impaled on it.
Porphyry,
Against the Christians frg. 36.5-6,
quoted in Macarius, Apocriticus IV:4
[5] Let us look at what was said to Paul, “The Lord spoke to Paul in a night by a vision, ‘Be not afraid, but speak, for I am with thee, and no man shall set on thee to hurt thee.’” (Acts xviii:9-10). And yet no sooner was he seized in Rome than this fine fellow, who said that we should judge angels, had his head cut off. [6] And Peter again, who received authority to feed the lambs, was nailed to a cross and impaled on it. And countless others, who held opinions like theirs, were either burnt, or put to death by receiving some kind of punishment or maltreatment. This is not worthy of the will of God, or even of a godly man, that a multitude of men should be cruelly punished through their relation to his own grace and faith, while the expected resurrection and coming remains unknown.
The Greek for this is Καὶ
Πέτρος ... σταυρῷ προσηλωθεὶς ἀνασκολοπίζεται: (And
Peter… having been nailed to a stauros,
is impaled [on it].)
C.2.2.1 Some
background for Peter’s “crucifixion”.
Tradition
has it that Peter the Apostle was crucified at Rome on Vatican Hill,
upside-down. This tradition apparently began when the Acts of Peter first appeared, in Greek, not later than 200 CE. When
Peter is arrested, he is commandeered by four soldiers and led before Agrippa,
who commands that he be crucified (staurow’ed).
(ch. 36) Then as they are preparing the stauros,
Peter asks the executioners to “crucify me thus, with the head downward and not
otherwise: and the reason wherefore, I will tell unto them that hear” (ch. 37).
And they proceed to suspend him in the manner requested. And then Peter
describes the suspendion device to which he is affixed in an unusual manner:
So
that the word is the upright beam whereon I am crucified. And the sound is that
which crosseth it, the nature of man. And the nail which holdeth the cross-tree
unto the upright in the midst thereof is the conversion and repentance of man.
Acts of Peter ch. 38
So
it looks like Peter is nailed to a post through the ankles, or bound to it with
his feet. The transverse, if a timber or log, could be held in place by the
outrigged acuta-crux which would be a “tree-nail” as we have seen before with
Lucian, or if a mere plank, held in place with a regular nail.
The
Acts of Peter and Paul has Peter requesting the same thing:
And
Peter, having come to the cross, said: “Since my Lord Jesus Christ, who came
down from the heaven upon the earth, was raised upon the cross upright, and He
has deigned to call to heaven me, who am of the earth, my cross ought to be
fixed head down most, so as to direct my feet towards heaven; for I am not
worthy to be crucified like my Lord.” Then, having reversed the cross, they
nailed his feet up.”
But
it appears Tertullian knows nothing about this tradition! Instead, he curtly
wrote, Petrus passion Dominicae adequatur:
“Peter was made equal to the suffering of the Lord.” (On a Prescription against Heretics 36.3) (New Advent) (The Latin Library) In other words, Peter was
suspended on a crux in the usual way.
Origen
seems to have relied upon a thoroughly different tradition and explains it this
way: ἀνεσκολοπίσθη
κατά κεφαλῆς οὕτως αὐτός ἀξιώσας παθεῖν: “He [Peter] was impaled through the
head, having deemed himself worthy to suffer in this manner.” (Origen, quoted
by Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica
3.1)
Of
course, you won’t find this in the English translations, they will just say “he
was crucified head-downwards.” (New Advent) (Documenta Catholica Omnia)
Eusebius
also describes upside-down crucifixions later on in his Historia Ecclesiastica: οἱ δέ ἀνάπαλιν κατωκάρα προσηλωθέντες: “but they were
nailed up inversely -- head downwards.” (Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica 8.8) (New Advent) (Documenta Catholica Omnia)
In
Demonstratio Evangelica which Eusebius
wrote prior to Historia Ecclesiastica,
he repeats Origen’s language: Πέτρος
κατά κεφαλῆς σταυροῦται:
“Peter was crucified (or impaled) upon the head”. (Eusebius, Demonstratio Evangelica 3.116.c) (Tertullian.org)
Now
in the second we may have information indicating knowledge that Peter was
crucified upside down. But that would mean he was literally crucified on his head, whatever that means. It
could mean he was nailed up upside down with his cranium literally resting on a
projection of his cross – a horizontal plank or the very acuta crux itself. If the latter, if it was made out of iron, it
could, after a while of Peter struggling to keep off the point and finally
resting upon it, could fulfill both the traditional account and Origen’s source
of information! Unfortunately, we do not know that for sure.
The
English translation (at Early Christian Writings website) cross-references Historia Ecclesiastica 2.25: It is,
therefore, recorded that Paul was beheaded in Rome itself, and that Peter
likewise was crucified under Nero (Church
History 2.25.5, New Advent website). The Greek is: Παῦλος δὴ οὖν ἐπ᾿
αὐτῆς Ῥώμης τὴν κεφαλὴν ἀποτμηθῆναι καὶ Πέτρος ὡσαύτως ἀνασκολοπισθῆναι
κατ᾿ αὐτὸν ἱστοροῦνται:
“Thus Paul at the very Rome itself to have his head cut off and Peter likewise
to be fixed on a pole (impaled) according to that [which] they relate”
(Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica
2.25.5).
It
clearly shows that Eusebius was not privy to the tradition that Peter was
crucified upside-down and instead had to rely upon the information he got from
Origen. It is only with Jerome that we have the traditional account recorded in
an official history:
Affixus cruci
martyrio coronatus est capite ad terram verso et in sublime pedibus elevates,
asserens se indignum qui sic crucifigeretur ut Dominus suus: “Having been
affixed to a crux he is crowned by
martyrdom with the head turned toward the Earth and the feet raised on high,
asserting himself unworthy of the manner he might be crucified as his lord.”
Jerome,
Catal. Script. Eccles. 1
But
Sulpicius Severus does not know anything of Peter being crucified upside-down
or impaled upon the head, we just get enough information to conclude that Peter
was suspended on a crux in some
manner: Petrus in crucem sublatus est:
“Peter was hoisted into a cross (or onto a stake).” That is all.
C.2.2.2
Conclusion regarding Porphyry’s Knowledge about Peter’s Death.
One
cannot assume, therefore, that Porphyry knew anything about the Apostle Peter
being crucified upside down, or being impaled on the head. If he heard about
the two differing accounts with their flabbergasting differences, he may have
concluded it was all stuff and nonsense. The only sense we can make out of
Porphyry’s minimal statement then was that Peter was meted out a full-blown
crucifixion the usual way: with an acuta
crux for his sedile ---
particularly when Tertullian knows nothing about any upside-down crucifixion or
an impalement upon the head.
C.2.3.
Conclusion about Porphyry’s Knowledge about Crucifixion.
We
do know that Porphyry knows something about Roman crucifixion. First, the
person was perditum: done away with,
destroyed, ruined, thrown away, wasted, lost (utterly and irrevocably). It was
the very worst death in his estimation (pessima
mors), incidentally bound with iron (ferro
vincta). Finally he understood crucifixion as a form of nailing (προσηλόω) and impaling (ἀνασκολοπίζω) on to some kind of utility pole / upright pale (σταυρός). It would be
utility pole with an outrigged upright pale to serve as the crucified’s seat,
no? Certainly it would have its crossarm!
C.2.4.
Lagniappe.
Porphyry,
Against the Christians frg. 15,
quoted in Macarius, Apocriticus II:12:
But
he with bitterness, and with very grim look, bent forward and declared to us
yet more savagely that the Evangelists were inventors and not historians of the
events concerning Jesus. For each of
them wrote an account of the Passion which was not harmonious but as
contradictory as could be. For one records that, when he was crucified, a
certain man filled a sponge with vinegar and brought it to him (Mark xv. 36).
But another says in a different way, "When they had come to the place
Golgotha, they gave him to drink wine mingled with gall, and when he had tasted
it, he would not drink" (Matt. xxvii. 33). And a little further, "And
about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice saying, Eloim, Eloim, lama
sabachthani? That is, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" This is
Matthew (v. 46). And another says, "Now there was set a vessel full of
vinegar. Having therefore bound a vessel full of the vinegar with a reed, they
offered it to his mouth. When therefore he had taken the vinegar, Jesus said,
It is finished, and having bowed his head, he gave up the ghost" (John
xix. 29). But another says, "And he cried out with a loud voice and said,
Father, into thy hands I will commend my spirit." This happens to be Luke
(Luke xxiii. 46). From this out-of-date and contradictory record, one can
receive it as the statement of the suffering, not of one man, but of many. For
if one says "Into thy hands I will commend my spirit," and another
" It is finished," and another "My God, my God, why hast thou
forsaken me?" and another " My God, my God, why didst thou reproach
me?" it is plain that this is a discordant invention, and either points to
many who were crucified, or one who died
hard and did not give a clear view of his passion to those who were
present. But if these men were not able to tell the manner of his death in a
truthful way, and simply repeated it by rote, neither did they leave any clear
record concerning the rest of the narrative.
This
is why each gospel should be its own separate story, and not harmonized as if
they were eyewitness accounts of an actual event. For according to the first
gospel, there was no one there (“They all forsook him, and fled”) except for many
women, only three of them noteworthy enough for Mark to mention their names,
who were watching the event from a great distance (gMark 14:50, 15:40). Women,
who would have as much chance in a Jewish court back then as they would in an
Islamic court today (tip o’ the hat to the late Christopher Hitchens), watching
things from afar, which means their view would have been blocked from time to
time and they didn’t see everything. Nor did they hear everything (if anything!), for what the various parties
said had to travel over the cacophony of the crowds.
Porphyry,
Against the Christians frg. 15,
quoted in Macarius, Apocriticus II:12:
It
will be proved from another passage that the accounts of his death were all a
matter of guess-work. For John writes : "But when they came to Jesus, when
they saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs; but one of the
soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and
water." For only John has said this, and none of the others. Wherefore he
is desirous of bearing witness to himself when he says: "And he that saw
it hath borne witness, and his witness is true" (v. 35). This is haply, as
it seems to me, the statement of a simpleton. For how is the witness true when its object has no existence? For a
man witnesses to something real; but how can witness be spoken of concerning a
thing which is not real?
Indeed.
For blood and water does not come out of the side of a dead man under pressure!
Yet that is how it is presented in all Catholic (and most Protestant)
tradition, right up to Mel Gibson’s The
Passion of the Christ!
Next and last
installment of Parts 6: Wrap-up.
Nota bene:
γόμφοις = noun, plural, masculine,
(instrumental) dative: bolt, dowel, bond, fasteners; determined; instrument for
cauterizing; sea fish; wooden nails, pegs.
σκολόπεσσι = noun plural
masculine (instrumental) dative: stake, thorn, anything pointed, palisades;
impaling stake; urethrea surgery tool; point of a fishhook, 'tree'.
Ἀνεσκολοπίσθη is third person, singular, aorist
indicative passive of the verb ἀνασκολοπίζω, fix on a pole, impale.”
Κατά constructed
with a genitive means down, down from, down over, down through, in through,
from top to bottom, utterly (Autenrieth); below, by, over (which an oath is
taken) (Slater); down from above, down from, (denoting) downward (motion), down
upon or over, along, upon, down into, under, towards, by over (which an oath is
taken),on, toward, down upon, against, upon, in respect of, concerning, on, of
(LSJ and Middle Liddell)
Σταυροῦται is the third
person present indicative medium-passive of the verb σταυρόω: “fence with pales, pile-drive, impale, crucify.”
No comments:
Post a Comment