Was Jesus Even Crucified? Part 6a

Part 6

WHEN Was Jesus Crucified?

Previous parts:

Part 1 - Link
Part 2 - Link
Part 3 - Link
Part 4 - Link
Part 5 - Link

Part 6a – Eusebius’ Confusion

In Church History I.11, Eusebius tries to pin down the date of the alleged crucifixion of the historical Jesus. Previously in parts 2 through 5 of this article, we have found out that Josephus, if he actually wrote the Testimonium Flavianum, was quite skeptical of whether the man was crucified or not! But here, Eusebius leaves quite an incomprehensible jumble, trying to figure out exactly when Jesus was crucified!

First of all, Eusebius starts off complaining about an alleged forgery concerning the times of Pontius Pilate, Prefect of Judea, 26-36 CE. (Church History I.9, emphasis mine)¹

“The same writer, in the eighteenth book of his Antiquities, says that about the twelfth year of the reign of Tiberius, who had succeeded to the empire after Augustus had ruled fifty-seven years, Pontius Pilate was entrusted with the government of Judea, and that he remained there ten full years, almost until the death of Tiberius.

“Accordingly the forgery of those who have recently given currency to acts against our Saviour is clearly proved. For the very date given in them shows the falsehood of their fabricators.

“For the things which they have dared to say concerning the passion of the Saviour are put into the fourth consulship of Tiberius, which occurred in the seventh year of his reign; at which time it is plain that Pilate was not yet ruling in Judea, if the testimony of Josephus is to be believed, who clearly shows in the above-mentioned work that Pilate was made procurator of Judea by Tiberius in the twelfth year of his reign.”

The seventh year of the reign of Tiberius would be 20-21 CE.

That would dovetail nicely with the placement of the TF in Josephus’ Antiquities (18.3.3) right before anecdotes of two religious scams, using the accepted dating for the expulsion of the Jews and Egyptians from Rome per order of the Senate in 19 CE.²

Continuing in Church History I.10: (emphasis mine)

1. It was in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius, according to the evangelist, and in the fourth year of the governorship of Pontius Pilate, while Herod and Lysanias and Philip were ruling the rest of Judea, that our Saviour and Lord, Jesus the Christ of God, being about thirty years of age, came to John for baptism and began the promulgation of the Gospel.

The fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius (18 September 14 CE to 22 March 37 CE) is 28-29 CE. Valerius Gratus ruled in Judea as Prefect (military governor and procurator) for the first 11 years of Tiberius’ reign, after which Pontius Pilate took his place in 25 CE, so the fourth year of Pilate’s hegemony is the same one-year span. Since the Synoptic gospels, gLuke included, present a one-year ministry ³ for Jesus, his crucifixion date according to the Synoptics possibly would have been in the spring of 30 CE.

Continuing further in Church History I.10: ⁴

2. The Divine Scripture says, moreover, that he passed the entire time of his ministry under the high priests Annas and Caiaphas,⁵ showing that in the time which belonged to the priesthood of those two men the whole period of his teaching was completed. Since he began his work during the high priesthood of Annas and taught until Caiaphas held the office, the entire time does not comprise quite four years.

3. For the rites of the law having been already abolished since that time, the customary usages in connection with the worship of God, according to which the high priest acquired his office by hereditary descent and held it for life, were also annulled and there were appointed to the high priesthood by the Roman governors now one and now another person who continued in office not more than one year.

4. Josephus relates that there were four high priests in succession from Annas to Caiaphas.⁶ Thus in the same book of the Antiquities he writes as follows: “Valerius Gratus having put an end to the priesthood of Ananus appoints Ishmael, the son of Fabi, high priest. And having removed him after a little he appoints Eleazer, the son of Ananus the high priest, to the same office. And having removed him also at the end of a year he gives the high priesthood to Simon, the son of Camithus. But he likewise held the honor no more than a year, when Josephus, called also Caiaphas, succeeded him.”⁷ Accordingly the whole time of our Saviour's ministry is shown to have been not quite four full years, four high priests, from Annas to the accession of Caiaphas, having held office a year each. The Gospel therefore has rightly indicated Caiaphas as the high priest under whom the Saviour suffered. From which also we can see that the time of our Saviour's ministry does not disagree with the foregoing investigation.

The above flatly contradicts what Eusebius has established as the beginning of Jesus’ ministry in the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar. For, according to Josephus, Valerius Gratus deposed Ananus about 15 CE, Ishmael ben Fabi serves for one year until 16 CE, then Eleazar ben Ananus to serve ‘til 17 CE, and Simon ben Camithus until 18 CE after him. Finally in 18 CE this otherwise do-nothing Roman Prefect appoints Josephus Caiaphas as high priest. This leaves us 10 years and some months until the beginning of the fifteenth year of Tiberius, in 28 CE. Luke’s assertion that Annas (Ananus) was *still* high priest alongside the high priest Caiaphas in the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar’s government is clearly falsified; yet Eusebius labors on under the conviction or delusion that Jesus began his ministry when Ananus was high priest.

Note also Eusebius asserts that Jesus had a ministry that was almost four years in length. That would take us to 19 CE, having Jesus being crucified about eight or nine years before starting his ministry in 28 or 29 CE! Eusebius at this point appears to harmonize Josephus' Antiquities with gLuke; and as a result, establishes the beginning of Jesus' ministry in 15 or 16 CE rather than 28 or 29 CE. Clearly, the good Doctor of the Church does not know what he is writing here, but he does affirm that the gLuke stated that Jesus ended his ministry under Caiaphas, which was the longest of all the high priests under the Romans: 18 to 37 CE. Clearly, this high priest made some sweetheart deals with both Valerius Gratus and Pontius Pilate! And John affirms in his gospel that Caiaphas was high priest when Jesus was allegedly crucified:

49 And one of them, named Caiaphas, being⁸the high priest that same⁹ year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all, 50 Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not. 51 And this spake he not of himself: but being¹⁰ high priest that year¹¹, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation;… (gJohn 11:49-51 KJV)

12 Then the band and the captain and officers of the Jews took Jesus, and bound him, 13 And led him away to Annas first; for he was father in law to Caiaphas, which was¹² the high priest that same year.¹³ (gJohn 18:12-13 KJV)

Now, there is nothing in John’s gospel that says that Caiaphas wasn’t the high priest the year before or the year after; still, there’s nothing there that can prevent it from being interpreted to indicate that he was not high priest before, after or both before and after. Still, the imperfect tense of the Greek verb (εἰμί (eimi)) indicates he certainly could still have been high priest the year following, and this is how Eusebius interprets Caiaphas also becoming high priest in the last year of Jesus’ ministry. So now we have two years when Jesus was supposed to have been crucified: 30 CE by Pontius Pilate, and 19 CE by Valerius Gratus!

And Eusebius makes it even worse for himself, when in the 11th chapter of the selfsame Book I of Church History, he writes: (emphasis and formatting mine)¹⁴

1. Not long after this John the Baptist was beheaded by the younger Herod, as is stated in the Gospels. Josephus also records the same fact, making mention of Herodias by name, and stating that, although she was the wife of his brother, Herod made her his own wife after divorcing his former lawful wife, who was the daughter of Aretas, king of Petra, and separating Herodias from her husband while he was still alive.

2. It was on her account also that he slew John, and waged war with Aretas, because of the disgrace inflicted on the daughter of the latter. Josephus relates that in this war, when they came to battle, Herod's entire army was destroyed, and that he suffered this calamity on account of his crime against John.

3. The same Josephus confesses in this account that John the Baptist was an exceedingly righteous man, and thus agrees with the things written of him in the Gospels. He records also that Herod lost his kingdom on account of the same Herodias, and that he was driven into banishment with her, and condemned to live at Vienne in Gaul.

4. He relates these things in the eighteenth book of the Antiquities, where he writes of John in the following words: It seemed to some of the Jews that the army of Herod was destroyed by God, who most justly avenged John called the Baptist.

5. For Herod slew him, a good man and one who exhorted the Jews to come and receive baptism, practicing virtue and exercising righteousness toward each other and toward God; for baptism would appear acceptable unto Him when they employed it, not for the remission of certain sins, but for the purification of the body, as the soul had been already purified in righteousness.

6. And when others gathered about him (for they found much pleasure in listening to his words), Herod feared that his great influence might lead to some sedition, for they appeared ready to do whatever he might advise. He therefore considered it much better, before any new thing should be done under John's influence, to anticipate it by slaying him, than to repent after revolution had come, and when he found himself in the midst of difficulties. On account of Herod's suspicion John was sent in bonds to the above-mentioned citadel of Machæra, and there slain. ¹⁵

7. After relating these things concerning John, he makes mention of our Saviour in the same work, in the following words: And there lived at that time Jesus, a wise man, if indeed it be proper to call him a man. For he was a doer of wonderful works, and a teacher of such men as receive the truth in gladness. And he attached to himself many of the Jews, and many also of the Greeks. He was the Christ.

8. When Pilate, on the accusation of our principal men, condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him in the beginning did not cease loving him. For he appeared unto them again alive on the third day, the divine prophets having told these and countless other wonderful things concerning him. Moreover, the race of Christians, named after him, continues down to the present day. ¹⁶

9. Since an historian, who is one of the Hebrews themselves, has recorded in his work these things concerning John the Baptist and our Saviour, what excuse is there left for not convicting them of being destitute of all shame, who have forged the acts against them? But let this suffice here.

What Josephus wrote about John the Baptist is found in his Antiquities 18.5.2¹⁷ and what he wrote about the defeat of Herod Antipas at the hand of Aretas IV which occurred about 36 or 37 CE is found in Antiquities 18.5.1 and 18.5.3.

First, a bit of background here. Philip the Tetrarch, Herod Antipas’ brother who ruled the northeast portion of Herod the Great’s kingdom, passed on about the end of 33 CE or the beginning of 34 CE.18 About this time, Herod Antipas got into a spat over his divorcing Aretas’ daughter so he could marry another woman he was smitten with, Herodias the wife of his brother Herod! 19 Eventually war breaks out over the dispute and Herod loses the battle spectacularly; he forthwith asks Tiberius Caesar to order Vitellus to continue the fight on his behalf – Vitellus was preparing to do so when he heard news that Tiberius was dead and that Caius “Caligula” Caesar replaced him, and so Vitellus recalls and disbands his army.²⁰

So although there is a bit of uncertainty here, we could date John the Baptist’s death to around 33 or 34 CE. With Jesus’ ministry following the death of John, we have a crucifixion date of 34, 35 or 36 CE. Unfortunately it does not follow that Jesus’ ministry could have been a bit less than four years in length, with the crucifixion in spring of 37 CE, because Pilate was recalled by Tiberius in the winter of 36-37 CE.²¹ The problem is, is the goofy placement of the so-called Testimonium Flavianum by Eusebius immediately after Josephus’ paragraph about John the Baptist in Antiquities 18.5.2 when in reality we find the paragraph about Jesus right between the Aqueduct incident²² and the two religious scams²³ that proved to be a disaster for the Jews!

Now on the other hand what we have in the Synoptic gospels,gMark, gMatthew and gLuke, is that Jesus started his ministry in the Galilee after John was put into prison!²⁴ GJohn, on the other hand, has Jesus and the Baptist active about the same time in the first portion of Jesus’ career.^{25, 26} This is a bit of a pickle, for in the Synoptics, at least gMark and gMatthew, John is reported to have been put imprisoned and later beheaded (to please his wife and daughter) because he reproved Herod Antipas for marrying his brother Philip’s wife!²⁷ This is entirely contrary to Josephus’ stated reason why the Baptist was killed – for political reasons due to his popularity.²⁸


Soon to come, Part 6b -- More of Eusebius' Confusion

Notes:


1. Eusebius, Church History I.9.1b-3, New Advent.org, Fathers, Eusebius, Church History. For the Greek Text, see Historia Ecclesiastica at the Documenta Catholica Omnia website, Eusebius Caesariensis, Historia Ecclesiastica entry page here. Cf. Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, 18.2.2 [35].

2. Tacitus, Annales 2.85. The date is established by the death of Germanicus, grandson of Caesar Augustus, in Annales 2.83.

3. Bernard D. Muller, Historical Jesus.info, “Appendix B: 28 C.E., 1. The synoptic gospels evidence.” Link: http://historical-jesus.info/appb.html accessed 11 January 2014.

4. Eusebius, Church History I.10.1-4. See n. 1 above for links.

5. GLuke 3:2 (link: http://biblehub.com/luke/3-2.htm). No other Gospel has Annas (Ananus per Josephus) as the high priest; gMatthew and gJohn state Caiaphas was high priest and gJohn states Annas was his
father-in-law.

6. Antiquities 18.2.2 [33].

7. Antiquities 18.2.2 [34].

8. Original Greek for “being”: ὢν (ôn), verb-participle present active, male nominative singular of εἰμί (eimi), “I am, I exist.” http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=wn&la=greek, http://biblehub.com/greek/1510.htm, http://biblehub.com/text/john/11-49.htm.

9. Original Greek for “that same year”: τοῦ ἐνιαυτοῦ ἐκείνου (tou eniautou ekeinou), article, noun and demonstrative pronoun respectively, genitive masculine singular of ὁ ἐνιαυτός ἐκεῖνος (o eviautos ekeinos), “that same year, that selfsame year, that there year”. Links: Tufts Perseus Greek Word Study Tool: tou, http://biblehub.com/greek/3588.htm, Tufts Perseus Greek Word Study Tool: eniautou, http://biblehub.com/greek/1763.htm, Tufts Perseus Greek Word Study Tool: ekeinou, http://biblehub.com/greek/1565.htm, http://biblehub.com/text/john/11-49.htm.

10. Greek word references same as n. 7, http://biblehub.com/text/john/11-51.htm.

11. Greek word references same as n. 8, GJohn reference same as n. 9.

12. Original Greek for “was”: ἦν (ên), verb, imperfect indicative active, third person singular of εἰμί (eimi), “I am, I exist.” http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=hn&la=greek, http://biblehub.com/greek/1510.htm, http://biblehub.com/text/john/18-13.htm.

13. Same as n. 10.

14. Church History I.10.1-9. See n. 1 above for links.

15. Antiquities 18.5.2 [115]-[119].

16. Antiquities 18.4.6 [106]-[108].

17. Same as n. 15.

18. Antiquities 18.4.6 [106]- [108].

19. Antiquities 18.5.1 [109]-[114].

20. Antiquities 18.5.1 [105], 18.5.3 [120]-[124].

21. Antiquities 18.4.2 [89].

22. Antiquities 18.3.2 [60]-[62].

23. Antiquities 18.3.4 [65]-[80], 18.3.5 [81]-[84].

24. gMark 1:14, gMatthew 4:12: "After that John was put into prison..."

25. gLuke 3:1-3, 7:19-34, 9:7-9: In gLuke 3, it is Tiberius’ 15th Year, and John the Baptist begins his ministry. John Baptizes almost everybody in Judea, and Jesus himself is baptized. In gLuke 7:19-24, John sends two disciples out enquiring if Jesus is the One prophesied to come. Jesus gives an answer that does not appear straightforward at first glance but is full of clues for the Christian understanding of that One to come. In gLuke 9:7-9 John the Baptist is meantioned as having been beheaded already.

26. Same as n. 15.

27. gMark 6:14-29, gMatthew 14:1-12: it is these two accounts that explain the (in my opinion, erroneous) rationale for Herod Antipas being beheaded. Cf. Luke 9:7-9 where it merely mentions that John the Baptist was beheaded by Herod Antipas. All three accounts mention that Herod Antipas married his brother Philip’s wife. Note this is all contrary to the account written in Josephus which precedes and follows within the main body of the text.

28. gJohn 1:28-33, 3:22-30 and 4:1-2: In gJohn 1, John the Bapist has begun his ministry and is actively baptizing Just before Jesus calls his disciples. In gJohn 3, just after the first Passover of Jesus’ ministry in that gospel, John is still active and is yet to be arrested; he says about Jesus and himself, “He must increase and I must decrease.” In John 4, the Pharisees hear that Jesus is now baptizing more that John the Baptist was at that time.

Crucifixion the Bodily Support - The Acuta Crux in Patristic Writings (6).

One depiction of a crucifixion after Tsaferis and Hass.

The “sedecula” shown is entirely invented.

But he is seated as if on a throne.

(Part 7f of the series: Crucifixion the Bodily Support)

Part 1          Part 2          Part 3         Part 4

Part 5a        Part 5b        Part 5c        Part 5d

Part 5e        Part 5f         Part 5g        Part 6a

Part 6b        Part 6c        Part 6d        Part 6e

Part 7a        Part 7b        Part 7c        Part 7d

Part 7e

Justin Martyr on the Acuta Crux (Part 5)

Recap:

In the first part previous I’ve shown how Justin Martyr brings up the figure of the σταυρός (staurós) or τρόπαιον (trópaion) and how it related to a flurry of cross and ‘T’ shaped objects, one of which definitely had an attachment that could be relate to the σκόλοψ (skólops) or acuta crux that was attached to the front of the execution pole. In the second part I showed Justin telling Antoninus Pius how the Jews sat Jesus in proper position on what he, Justin, called a βήματος (bêmatos), that is, a judgment seat, although it’s impossible to tell if that seat was also the sedilis excessu of the execution pole that turned it into a Priapus stake. In the third part I noted the peculiarity of Justin's comparison of a person who is undergoing the suspension of the  σταυρός and the roasting of the Passover Lamb: because the Lamb was suspended by its front paws from a horizontal wooden beam, and impaled on a wooden spit from the hindquarters right up to the mouth, as if the acuta crux Jesus was subjected to was a regular impaling stake! In the fourth I showed how early Christians took a verse of overthrowing Jeremiah’s tree and the fruit thereof into a prophecy about how wood was caused to go onto the body of Jesus, or into his body, or both.

Reigning from the Wood?

Another accusation against the Jewish rabbis was an alleged removal of ἁπό τοῦ ξύλου (apó tou ksúlou) “from the wood” from the texts of the 96^th Psalm:

And from the ninety-fifth (ninety-sixth) Psalm they have taken away this short saying of the words of David: 'From the wood.' For when the passage said, 'Tell among the nations, the Lord has reigned from the wood,' they have left, 'Tell among the nations, the Lord has reigned.'

Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 73 _{1, 2}

Now this is pretty reckless on Justin Martyr’s part, because he’s saying this to a Jewish person. He then goes on to say that no one from his nation has ever ruled as Lord and God except for, of course, the One Crucified. ₃ For indeed, Justin Martyr, and the Church Fathers after him, like Tertullian, make use of these words, ἁπό τοῦ ξύλου, a lingo, “from the wood,” which cannot be found in any of the Greek or Latin translations, from whence they seem to produce them, or in any of the translations or originals extant. _{4, 5}

Now of course, if he is reigning from the wood as from a throne, would not at least one of the gospels indicate as such? Indeed they do! For in gMark (10:36-45) and gMatthew (20:20-28), we have Jesus telling James and John the sons of Zebedee that “to sit at my right or left is not for me to grant. These places belong to those for whom they have been prepared.” He is talking about the two “thieves” (armed robbers, brigands, highwaymen, insurrectionists) who are to be suspended with him, one on either side, at his crucifixion – Mark and Matthew make this clear by bracketing this vignette with Jesus predicting his death and by portraying the procession to place of execution as a Roman Imperial triumph, and the crucifixion itself as the triumphator being seated between his two consuls! I have made this clear here and here, as has the Biblical Archaeology Review, here. ₆

So clearly, if the Crucified One was “reigning from the wood” as from a throne, then clearly he was sitting on a Roman execution pole, which means, of course, he was mounted on it: impaled. This is exactly what Maceneas and Seneca meant by “sitting on a piercing cross”or a “pointed stake.” 7, 8

And of course, a Roman execution pole with its Priapeian appendage was exactly what Justin Martyr was talking about, as we shall see next.

Next up: The Horns of a Unicorn.

Greek and Latin Word Definitions.

(1) "from the wood."

1. ἁπό (apó): preposition c. w/ gen., "from, off. " Perseus Greek Word Study Tool, Link.

2. τοῦ (tou): article singular neuter genitive, "of the." Perseus Greek Word Study Tool, Link.

3. ξύλου (xúlou): noun singular neuter genitive, "of wood, a plank, a beam, a tree, a stake for impaling." Perseus Greek Word Study Tool, Link.

4. a: preposition c. w/ abl., “from, off of.” Perseus Latin Word Study Tool, Link.

5. lingo: noun singular neuter ablative, “from wood, timber, gathered wood, a tree, a club." Perseus Latin Word Study Tool, Link.

(2) "except for the Crucified One."

6. ἄλλ᾽ (áll’): adjective singular neuter accusative, "other, another, any other." Perseus Greek Word Study Tool, Link.

7. ἤ (ê): conjunction, "or." Perseus Greek Word Study Tool, Link.

8. περί (perí): preposition, c. w/ gen., "about, for." Perseus Greek Word Study Tool, Link.

9. τούτου (toútou): adjective singular masculine genitive, "this." Perseus Greek Word Study Tool, Link.

10. μόνου (mónou): adjective singular masculine genitive, "alone, only." Perseus Greek Word Study Tool, Link.

11. τοῦ (tou) : article singular neuter genitive, "of the, of that, of the one." Perseus Greek Word Study Tool, Link.

12. σταυρωθέντος (staurôthéntos): participle singular aorist passive masculine genitive, “having been crucified, impaled.”  Perseus Greek Word Study Tool, Link. See also FdVR Post Σταυρόω.

13. praeter: preposition, c. w. acc. “except, besides, unless, save, other than,” Perseus Latin Word Study Tool, Link. 

14. hunc: pronoun singular masculine accusative, “this, that, the former, the latter, etc.” Perseus Latin Word Study Tool, Link.

15. solum: adjective singular masculine accusative “alone, only, sole.” Perseus Latin Word Study Tool, Link.

16. crucifixum: participle singular perfect passive masculine accusative, “crucified, attach to a cross or impaling stake, etc.” William Whittaker’s Words, Link.

Text References.

1. New Advent.org, Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 72, Link.

2. Documenta Catholica Omnia, Justin Martyr, Dialogus cum Tryphone Judaeo 72, PDF p. 88, cols. 645, 646, Link.

Corresponding Greek Text: Aπό τοῦ ἐνενηκοστοῦ πέμπτου ψαλμοῦ τῶν διά Δαβίδ λεξθέντων λόγων, λέξεις βραχείας ἀφείλοντο ταύτας, ἁπό τοῦ ξύλου. Eἰρημένον γάρ τοῦ λόγου, Eἵπατε ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν, O Kύριος ἐβασίλευσεν ἁπό τοῦ ξύλου, ἀφῆκαν, Eἵπατε ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν, O Kύριος ἐβασίλευσεν.

Greek transliteration: Apó tou enenêkostou pémptou psalmou tôn diá Dabid lexthéntôn lógôn, léxeis bracheías afeílonto tautas, apó tou xúlou eirêmánon gár tou lógou, Eípate en tois éthnesin, O Kúrios ebasíleusen apó tou xúlou, afêkan, Eípate en tois éthnesin, O Kúrios ebasíleusen.

Latin text: Resecuerunt ‘a lingo’ ex psalmo xcv. – Et ex psalmo Davidis nonagesimo quinto perpauer haec ibstulerunt, ‘a lingo’. Nam cum its dictum fuissent, ‘Dicite in gentibus: Dominus regnavit in lingo’; reliquerunt, ‘Dicite in gentibus: Dominus regnavit’.

3._. Ibid., ἄλλ᾽ ἤ περί τούτου μόνου τοῦ σταυρωθέντος (áll’ ê perí toútou mónou tou staurôthéntos), “nor about any other, only this one who was crucified;” praeter hunc solum crucifixum, “except this one crucified only.”

4. John Pearson, D.D. An Exposition of the Creed, Cambridge, England, University Press (1859), pp. 378-9.

5. The Tanakh, 1917 JPS Edition, Ketuvim – Writings, Book IV, Psalms 96:10, “Say among the nations: ‘The HaShem reigneth.’” Link. Cf. Psalms 96:10 at Bible.cc parallel translations: “Tell all the nations: ‘The LORD reigns!’” Also the Septuagint: εἴπατε ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν ὁ κύριος ἐβασίλευσεν (eípate en tois éthnesin ó kúrios ebasíleusen) “You shall tell in the nations, ‘The Lord has reigned.’” And the Vulgate:

dicite in gentibus Dominus regnavit “Tell in the nations, ‘The Lord has reigned.’”

6. Thomas Schmidt, Biblical Archaeology Review, “Jesus’ Triumphal March to Crucifixion, The sacred way as Roman procession.” The author notes some emperors who ascended Capitoline Hill or took their seat on the Rostrum with two of his generals, consuls or viceregents, citing Claudius (44 CE), Vitellus (68 CE), and of course, Vespasian, who “celebrated his triumph over the Jews with Titus beside him in the triumphal chariot and Domitian riding alongside; the three then performed together the culminating events of the triumph.” Link.

7. Maceneas, ap. Seneca Minor, Epistularum moralium ad Lucilium 101:11 (transl. Richard M. Gummere, Moral Epistles, The Loeb Classical Library, Cambridge, Mass. The Harvard University Press, (1917-25) Vol. III). Links: Latin, English:

debilem facito manu,

debilem pede coxo,

tuber adstrue gibberum,

lubricos quate dentes:

vita dum superest, benest;

hanc mihi, vel acuta

si sedeam cruce, sustine.

“Fashion me with a palsied hand,

Weak of foot, and a cripple;

Build upon me a crook-backed hump

Shake my teeth till they rattle

All is well, if my life remains.

Save, oh, save it, I pray you,

Though I sit on the piercing cross!”*

8. Maceneas, ap. Seneca Minor, Epistularum moralium ad Lucilium 101:12 (Gummere translation except as noted): ‘suffigas licet et acutam sessuro crucem subdas.' “‘You may nail me up and set my seat upon the piercing cross!’”* Meaning of course, a cruciform or semicruciform gallows equipped with a pointed or sharpened stake to seat the criminal thereon, which was obvious to Seneca: est tanti vulnus suum premere et patibulo pendere districtum? “Is it so great to weigh down upon one's own wound, and hang stretched out by a crossbeam?”** Note here, “one’s own wound” is a euphemism for one’s penetrated anus! Cf. Leonard C. Smithers and Sir Richard Burton, translrs, The Priapeia, “Sodomy with Women” (Link), Epigram 10 (Link) and Epigram 87 (Link) for the equation of Priapus’ virile member with a crux; and also FdVR post Crucifixion and Priapus.

* Or "pointed stake."
** My translation – Richard M. Gummere translated Seneca’s retort as: “is it worth while to weigh down upon one’s own wound, and hang impaled upon a gibbet?” It actually brings out the whole obscene, mock-homoerotic sense of Roman crucifixion, although it may have been that Mr. Gummere intended “impaled” only to mean “transpierced with nails.”

It Appears Mark Based Jesus' Passion on a Triumph.

Marcus Aurelius sacrificing at the

Fourth Temple of Jupiter Capitolinus.

Note the three doors have crosses.

Originally posted by Stephan Huller here. Reposted here (I have added the photos and some information at the bottom in notes 1 through 6).

Thomas Schmidt, “Jesus’ Triumphal March to Crucifixion: The Sacred Way as Roman Procession,” Bible Review, Feb 97: 30-37.   

Thomas Schmidt’s thesis in “Jesus’ Triumphal March to Crucifixion: The Sacred Way as Roman Procession,” is that the crucifixion procession is modeled on a Roman triumphal march, with Jerusalem’s Via Dolorosa replacing the Sacra Via [sic] of Rome. Schmidt’s rhetorical purpose is to convince us that Mark presents Jesus’ defeat and death, the moment of his greatest suffering and humiliation, as both literally and figuratively a triumph.

Arguments:

1. Schmidt argues, from source criticism, that Mark’s gospel was probably written for gentile Christians living in Rome.

 

2. Mark’s crucifixion narrative contains a number of striking parallels to the Roman triumphal march. The parallels in Mark follow. 

a. The “praetorium” – a common designation for the place and personnel of the imperial guard – gathers early in the morning to proclaim the triumphator.  

b. The description of Jesus’ clothing. The triumphator is introduced clad in a ceremonial purple robe and crown. In [Mark], the soldiers dress Jesus in the purple triumphal garb and place a crown of laurel on his head. The crown of thorns is a ceremonial detail, not an historical fact.

Source: Biblical Archaeological Review. 

c. The soldiers’ mock homage of Jesus. The soldier’s accolades are represented by the mock homage in Mk 15.18. The soldiers shout in acclamation of his lordship (“Hail, King of the Jews”) and they salute him as they accompany him through the streets of the city.  

d. Another carries the implement of the victim’s death. Simon of Cyrene carrying the cross parallels the official who walks alongside the bull.  

e. The translation of “Golgotha” – “the place of the head.” Golgotha was the Capitolium (head) to which the triumphator ascended. Jesus’ procession ascends to the place of the head (death), where the sacrifice is to take place. 1, 2, 3 

f. The ceremonial wine poured on the altar. The wine signifies the precious blood of the victim, and links between triumphator, wine and victim signify their connection. The sacrifice is the god who dies and appears as the victor in the person of the triumphator. Jesus does not drink the wine; instead, he pours it out on the altar at the moment of sacrifice. 

g. The acclamation of Jesus as Lord (“The King of the Jews” [Mk 15.26]), and his vice-regents appear with him in confirmation of his glory.) 4

Credit: Biblical Archaeology Review.  

h. The crucifixion of criminals on either side of Jesus is a conscious expression of the mockery of his kingship on the part of the soldiers. Mk tells us that there were 2 bandits – one on his right and one on his left.  

i. The epiphany of the triumphator is accompanied by divine portents (“The curtain of the Temple was torn in two” [Mk 15.38]), confirming that he is one with the gods.)

Mark presents the crucifixion as an “anti-triumph” – with Jesus mocked and killed – to show that the seeming scandal of the cross is actually an exaltation of Christ. Mark’s anti-triumph was composed in reaction to the self-deification of the emperors Gaius (37-41 AD) and especially Nero (54-68 AD).

 
For Mark, it is the mocked Jesus, not the gaudy Roman emperor, who is the true epiphanic triumphator. 

I stumbled upon this summary and had to admit - I think the author's right here. This might be useful for mythicists because it presents the story as highly embellished. Again, I think he's basically right about this. I don't know how you argue against what he is saying here.

This too on 2 Corinthians 2:14: 4

http://books.google.com/books?id=tej...riumph&f=false 5

Here is an article Schmidt wrote for BAR on the subject:

http://www.bib-arch.org/online-exclusives/easter-05.asp 

I think this is one of the most convincing things I have ever read. The problem for me was its literary purpose. Why would Mark develop the narrative this way?

... If, as he claims the gospel was written for a Roman audience, they would have immediately recognized the 'Christ in the place of Caesar' reference. They would also have undoubtedly recognized the irony or some sort of disparaging reference to the ruler of the world. I still accept his identification of the Roman triumph imagery. I just don't see how this could have been written for a Roman audience.

Of course the question would naturally arise - who was written for? Still an open question.

... Here's perhaps the best argument to connect Schmidt's argument with the war of 70 CE. The rebel leader Simon was thrown off the Tarpeian Rock (Latin, Rupes Tarpeia or Saxum Tarpeium) which was a steep cliff of the southern summit of the Capitoline Hill, overlooking the Roman Forum.

You don't have this occurring after the Bar Kochba revolt. 

As such on the one hand you have Jerusalem being renamed Aelia Capitolina. That's significant. But claiming the gospel was written as a triumph procession clearly references an impending military victory where - {in my opinion]- the Romans think they have triumphed but really it was Christ victorious.... ... The idea that the revolt was inspired by Jesus is also implied in the Little Apocalypse (many will come saying 'I am he' etc.) ...

I still think that the revolts (which are never properly explained) may well have some underlying connection to a primitive Palestine faith.

[Only] that where the evidence is suspect, nothing can be said with any certainty. The only thing I am sure of in all my years of looking at this stuff is that Schmidt is right about the context. There can be no doubt and as such the idea that the gospel narrative = history implodes. One can argue that Jesus 'must have been' actually crucified or that there 'must have been' a real Jesus. But the gospel doesn't prove anything because it is obviously arranged to fit a theological contrivance. This is NOT how history unfolded. 

Exactly! That the forced march out of the city to the crucifixion field would lead to a place called Gologotha = Κρανίου Τόπος = Calvaria (Mount Calvary) which are mere diversions to hide the fact that it was Capitoline Hill in Rome or its Jerusalemian equivalent, the Temple Mount (for that is where that other most famous temple to Jupiter Capitolinus was built), shows clearly that whosoever wrote this scene in Mark was at the very least copying off of an Emperor's (Vespasian's?) triumphus and the funeral of Julius Caesar. On the other hand, a crucifixion field would more likely be called an "Akeldama:" a field of blood. Even if crucifixion was relatively a bloodless punishment, as some scholars claim.

Indeed, an early, though out-of-order, depiction of his procession and crucifixion is on the Sarcophagus Domatilla, where Jesus is crowned not with a helmet of thorns, but with a laurel wreath, or maybe a coronet of acapanthus leaves, and he is toting his cross around as if he were Romulus carrying a tropaeum. What's even more strange is that his resurrection is depicted as going directly from his cross, which itself was constructed just like a tropaeum.

Notes:

1. "Curious. When Hadrian built Aelia Capitolina on the site of Jerusalem, a temple to Jupiter Capitolinus was erected in the place of the destroyed Temple in Jerusalem." (S. Huller) There was an identical temple to Jupiter Capitolinus on top of Capitoline Hill in Rome. (Ed-M)

2. Jastrow's Dictionary, גולגול' ,גולגולת (gulgol, gulgoletha): skull, head, capitation tax. Compare with modern Hebrew גולגולת (gulgoleth): skull, head, cranium.

3. From Schmidt's BAR article: "Dionysius of Halicarnassus [The Roman Antiquities, 4.61.2] records the legend that, during the laying of a foundation for a temple on a certain Roman hill, a human head was discovered with its features intact. Soothsayers proclaimed:"

“Romans, tell your fellow citizens it is ordered by fate that the place in which you found the head shall be the head of all Italy,” (and) since that time the place is called the Capitoline hill from the head that was found there; for the Romans call heads capita.

Note crosses on the doors of an earlier, perhaps the
first, temple of Jupiter Capitolinus.
Coins do not lie.

4. Nota bene in Vespasian's triumphus in 71 CE for the victory in the Great Jewish War 66-70 CE, his sons Titus and Domitian accompanied him in the ride up to Capitoline Hill, and the three of them performed the culminating ritual sacrifice at the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus. This follows a tradition of emperors appearing somehow between two others at various points of their triumphs.

5. 2 Corinthians 2:14-15 ESV:  "Christ always leads us in triumphal procession, and through us spreads in every place the fragrance that comes from knowing him. For we are the aroma of Christ to God among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing."

6. Murray J. Harris, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, Grand Rapids, W. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2005, pp..243-244. Although there is more at the link you should read, the key information about a Roman triumph follows:

The term θριαμβεύω is from the noun θρίαμβος, which was a hymn sung to Dionysius (Bacchus) during festal processions, a title of Dionysius, and also a meeting of the Latin term triumphus. Linguistically θριαμβεύειν corresponds to the Latin term triumphare, "to celebrate a triumph" (intransitive) or "to lead in triumph" (transitive). The Roman triumph was a victory procession celebrated by Roman generals on their return to Rome after a successful foreign campaign, although during an empire the privelege of celebrating a triumph became the prerogative of the emperor. There are some who deny that the Roman triumph is the conceptual background to 2:14, but, given the linguistic data mentioned above, and the face that about 350 triumphs are recorded in Greco-Roman literature, it seems antecedently probable that Paul is alluding to this ceremony and its ritual when he uses θριαμβεύω here and in Colossians 2;15, the only other NT use.

Some significant features of this ostentatious pageant may be briefly sketched. At the head of the procession came the magistrates and the senate, followed by trumpeters and some spoils of wars such as vessels of gold or beaks of ships. Then came the flute players, ahead of the white oxen destined to be sacrifices in the temples, along with some representative captives from the conquered territory, including such dignitaries as the king, driven in chains in front of the ornate chariot of the general, the triumphator ("the one honoured by the triumph"), who wore the garb of Jupiter (ornatus Iovis) and carried a scepter in his left hand. A slave held a crown above his head. The victorious soldiers followed, shouting "Io triumphe!" ("Hail, triumphant one!"). As the procession ascended the Capitoline Hill, some of the leading captives (usually royal figures or the tallest and strongest of the conquered warriors) were taken aside into the adjoining prison and executed. Sacrifies were offered upon arrival at the temple Jupiter Capitolinus. Livy informs us of the two purposes of a triumph: to thank the gods who had guaranteed the victory and to glorify the valor of the triumphator.

http://books.google.com/books?id=tej...riumph&f=false 

Crucifixion the Bodily Support - "Biblical Evidence"

(Part 5a of the series: Crucifixion the Bodily Support)

Introduction.

What sort of gear was the instrument of Jesus' execution?

There was a big stink raised by the sensationalist press a few years ago when Gunnar Samuelsson's hypothesis that successfully defended before his peers at Gotheburg University in Sweden was released upon the world. As a result, most people think he believes

Conservative Christians scholars, professional and armchair alike, as for example, Martin Hengel, Leolaia and Stephen C. Jones have treated the gospels as complimentary. However, critical scholars -- and ancient critical philospohers like Porphyry -- have determined them not to be complimentary, and contradictory. Ancient Christians have found parallels between the Crucifixion and the sailing of Odysseus and his crew past the Sirens, with Odysseus himself lashed to the mast. Furthermore, critical modern scholars believe the accounts of the crucifixion itself  to be not based on eyewitness accounts at all, but midrashed out of the Septuagint and patterned after a triumph of a Caesar, perhaps that of Flavius Vespasian Caesar; the funeral of Julius Caesar, with his wax image crucified on a cruciform tropaeum; the capture, trial, scourging and release of Jesus ben Ananias in Josephus' Wars of the Jews 6.301-309 = 6.5.3 and even Josephus' account of the rescue of three of his friends from Roman execution poles in Life 420-421 = Life 75. In other words, they are saying that there wasn't a crucifixion (f, i, x, i, o, n), but a crucifiction! (f, i, c, t, i, o, n). And judging by internal evidences in the gospels, they are correct. But I will deal with that a later time.

So I am going to treat the four gospels as separate, and then harmonise the whole lot, to see what differences come up. So here we go.

A. Mark.

There are several passages in this tale that give us clues as to what the gear of Jesus' execution was imagined to be.

A.1. "He must take up his pole."

The first passage occurs in Mark chapter 8, right after Simon bar Jonah, now Simon Peter, confesses that he, Jesus, is the Christ. Jesus predicts his own death: that he must be rejected by the elders, chief priests and teachers of the Torah, be killed and after three days rise again. And then he calls to the crowd and also to his discpiles:

Then he called the crowd to him along with his disciples and said: “If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross (τὸν σταυρὸν αὐτοῦ) and follow me.

Mark 8:34 NIV

Now here, σταυρὸν would probably mean "pole" as in the patibulum or crossarm of a two-beam or two-pole cross, simple or monohorned, or of an impaling stake, or of a simple pole: to which one is nailed or otherwise fixed and left to die. Of course, the last type of pole would have to be of small enough of a thickness and short enough of a length, say, 3.5 m in length by 150 mm in diameter (11'8" x 6" dia) of Jerusalem Pine at say 510 kg / cu m (32 pcf). This, of course, would be no Jehovah's Witnesses' stake but something much lighter and very easy to carry. And obviously it would be no heavy two-beam cross made of 6 x 6 or larger dimensional timber.

A.2. "Grant that we may sit."

Again, Jesus makes his second prediction that he will be condemned to death, be handed over to the goyyim, who will mock him, spit on him, flog him and kill him. And then he will rise again on the third day.

And then we go right into the scene between Jesus and the James and John, the Sons of Zebedee.

Then James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came to him. “Teacher,” they said, “we want you to do for us whatever we ask.”

“What do you want me to do for you?” he asked.

They replied, “Let one of us sit at your right and the other at your left in your glory.”

“You don’t know what you are asking,” Jesus said. “Can you drink the cup I drink or be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with?”

“We can,” they answered.

Jesus said to them, “You will drink the cup I drink and be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with, but to sit at my right or left is not for me to grant. These places belong to those for whom they have been prepared.”

Mark 10: 35-40 NIV

And then after this Jesus calls the other ten, who are indignant, together and told them if they wish to be great ones among themselves and their followers, they must be their subjects' servants, not the other way around. He then concludes this with another premonition of his death, "that the Son of Man did not come to be served, but serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."

Now the reference to "the baptism that I am baptized with" and "the cup I shall drink" is an allusion to his up-coming sufferings. Otherwise, why does he ask, "Take this cup from me. Yet not what I will, but what you will” at Gethsemane? Because the cup is the cup of suffering that he must drink during his illegal trial before the Sanhedrin, his legal trial before Pilate, his floggings and tortures and even the crucifixion itself. And the baptism? It could very well be his death, for in Romans 6, we have Paul asking his readers if they knew that those "who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death." After all, baptism back then was complete immersion and if the person dunking you didn't lift you back up, you'd drown... and be immersed in death, not just water.

Now what about the ones sitting at his right and at his left when Jesus comes into his glory? Well notice he said if one wished to be great, one has to serve. Which means his ultimate service is "giving his life for many." Which means of course, he is forshadowing his crucifixion with two highwaymen, that is, two armed robbers, one on either side, so that when he comes into his glory, it will be on an Roman execution pole! (Hint: the pole won't look like the Jehovah's Witnesses' depiction with ordinary poles on the left, for the three are not "sitting.") 

And sure enough, the Antenicene Church fathers thought so, for starting with Justin Martyr (Dialogue with Trypho 73), they accused the Jews of doctoring the 96th Psalm from the Christians' copies of the Septuagint to remove the words, "from the wood!" (ἁπό του ξύλου) So that the sentence "Tell among the nations, the Lord has reigned!" was originally supposed to have been, "Tell among the nations, the Lord has reigned from the wood!" Christians actually believed this back then.

And what is this about sitting (καθίζω "to sit, cause to sit, take one's seat, settle, sink down") at his right and at his left? Well there is some interesting rhetorical literature back then that people did actually "sit" on their crosses. For the apparent normative Roman execution pole (at least from the turn of the second century on for the entire Empire, and earlier, perhaps much earlier, for Italy) had a crossarm and a central point called by various names including a sedile, a cornu, a palus, and a σκόλοψ. Indeed, Seneca (Epistles 101:10 through 14) who inveighed against Maeceneas for preferring to sit on a pointed crux over suicide. The two of them are openly explicit in line 12:

" 'One may nail me up and set underneath a pointed crux for sitting'* " (Suffigas licet et acutam sessuro crucem subdas) "Is it so great to press down** on one's own wound and to hang stretched out tight from a patibulum?" (Est tanti vulnus suum premere et patibulo pendere districtum?)

*also "ride, sink down, settle on, subside, be fixed, stuck fast, etc." (Lewis and Short)
**also "bear down upon, press hard upon, press down, press into, force in, overwhelm, weigh down, etc." (Lewis and Short)

What makes it worse, is that in naughty Roman verse, the Latin vulnus refers to the "wound" opened by a man's entry into the back passage of his co-participant in anal sex. (Martial, Quintus Serenus and Priapeia 10, ap. The Priapeia, Sacred-Texts.com) So Seneca is apparently using a euphemism here.

Well, back to the throne. What the two were asking of Jesus, and they don't know it, was for them to "sit on" or rather "ride"  the crosses, poles or pales the two armed robbers were going to "sit on!" For they were naively think they were going to take their seats on actual royal thrones in the Kingdom of God, i.e., the World to Come.

 A.3. "And then they fenced him with pales" (or is it "pile-drove him?") 

Some, including some scholars, believe that the Gospels contain the most detailed accounts of a crucifixion. They do not. All they have is a simple statement that they did, not how they did it.

Here is what Mark says, from when Pilate passes sentence:

Pilate released Barabbas to them. He had Jesus flogged, and handed him over to be crucified.

The soldiers led Jesus away into the palace (that is, the Praetorium) and called together the whole company of soldiers. They put a purple robe on him, then twisted together a crown of thorns and set it on him. And they began to call out to him, “Hail, king of the Jews!” Again and again they struck him on the head with a staff and spit on him. Falling on their knees, they paid homage to him. And when they had mocked him, they took off the purple robe and put his own clothes on him. Then they led him out to crucify him.

A certain man from Cyrene, Simon, the father of Alexander and Rufus, was passing by on his way in from the country, and they forced him to carry the cross. They brought Jesus to the place called Golgotha (which means The Place of the Skull). Then they offered him wine mixed with myrrh, but he did not take it. And they crucified him. Dividing up his clothes, they cast lots to see what each would get.

Mark 15:15-24

Notice they have a lot of detail about what went on before. Flogging, delivering the prisoner over to the soldiers, mocking him, leading him out to be crucified, making someone else, a certain Simon of Cyrene carry his cross (σταυρὸν - pole), arriving at Golgotha - Cranium Place - , the refused offering of a tincture of wine and myrrh, and then they crucify him (καὶ σταυροῦσιν αὐτὸν). And after that they gambled over his clothes.

No details are given how jesus was crucified. Just the use of the verb σταυρόω "impale on [a] cross", according to the Greek-English Lexicon in Strong's Exhaustive Concordance. And of course, we have the LSJ which defines σταυρόω as: "to fence with pales" and Tucydides 7.25.7 defining the verb as: "to drive piles".

So we have not a single clue as how the Roman Soldiers crucified Jesus, except the basic definition of the verb σταυρόω. Not one clue as to the nature of the structure of Jesus' execution.

What's worse, is the tincture of wine and myrrh. Historic scholars believe that in Judea, the Jewish womens' auxiliaries would minister to persons about to be crucified by offering them wine mixed with some kind of strong painkiller, that basically would knock them out or put them into a stupor. But the Jews would have used olibanum or libanum, called by the Hebrews libanah, to do this. They would not have used myrrh, for myrrh was and is a tonic and a stimulant. Now what did the Romans believe myrrh was good for? For one thing, they believed it was a sexual aphrodisiac -- and not necessarily only as an herbal scent! It is still used as such in Ayurvedic medicine today because it works.

And Mark has the Roman soldiers give Jesus the tincture of wine and myrrh! It is just as plain in the Greek as it is in the English; antecedents and relative pronouns work just the same in Greek as the do in English. So it is possible the soldiers intended to sexually stimulate Jesus, which would make the shame and humiliation of crucifixion even greater. Of course, for Jesus refuses to drink this stimulative tincture!

A.4. Where was the Sign?

Now after they crucified jesus, where did the Roman soldiers install the sign bearing his name and charge of crimen maiestasis, i.e., high treason?

It was the third hour when they crucified him. The written notice of the charge against him read: THE KING OF THE JEWS.

Mark 15:25, 26

The Greek for verse 26 is: "καὶ ἦν ἡ ἐπιγραφὴ τῆς αἰτίας αὐτοῦ ἐπιγεγραμμένη Ο ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣ ΤΩΝ ΙΟΥΔΑΙΩΝ." Transliterated as: "And was the epigraphy of the accusation of him: THE KING OF THE JEWS." Nothing about where the writing was posted, except it was on-site.

A.5. And Who Were with Him?

If you recall Mark 10: 35-40, James and John bar Zebedee came up to Jesus and asking that they get to sit beside him one at his right and the other at his left, naively think that he was speaking of the sitting on his throne in the World to Come. In reply, Jesus said it was outside of his power to grant their request, for the seats were reserved for those for whom it was prepared. This, of course, was an illusion to his crucifixion.

And who were the two to sit at his right and at his left, for whom it was prepared?

They crucified two robbers with him, one on his right and one on his left.

Mark 15:27

That is right, the two robbers. And if they were "seated" on poles (σταυρούς) under lesser charges (armed robbery) what about the one crucified under the charge of high treason as "The King of the Jews?" If the acuta crux was just a horizontal dowel, beam, cleat or a plank, then it would have been added to the punishment for those with the greater charge as well as for those with the lesser, except when it made the crucifixion less torturous. When it was an upright stake designed for crucifixion by penetration, no way would have it been remitted for those with the highest charge when those with the lower charges were forced to "sit on it." 

A.6. The Mockery.

Then there are the insults heaped on Jesus.

They crucified two robbers with him, one on his right and one on his left. Those who passed by hurled insults at him, shaking their heads and saying, “So! You who are going to destroy the temple and build it in three days, come down from the cross and save yourself!”

In the same way the chief priests and the teachers of the law mocked him among themselves. “He saved others,” they said, “but he can’t save himself! Let this Christ, this King of Israel, come down now from the cross, that we may see and believe.” Those crucified with him also heaped insults on him.

Mark 15: 27-32 NIV

The part of the insults that I will focus on is the the taunts "come down from the cross and save yourself" (σῶσον σεαυτὸν καταβὰς ἀπὸ τοῦ σταυροῦ) in verse 30 and "Let this Christ... come down from the cross" (ὁ χριστὸς..  καταβάτω νῦν ἀπὸ τοῦ σταυροῦ) in verse 32.  In verse 30 the Greek transliterates as: - "save yourself, having come down from the pole." The relevant line in verse 32 transliterates from the Greek as: "The Christ...  let him come down now from the pole."

Now, in the Koine Greek the verbs, shown for "come down" are conjugated from καταβαίνω. Now, in the Scott-Liddell Greek-English Lexicon, if one were to replace "horse" (ἵππου), "carriage" (ἁρμαμάξης) or "chariot" (δίφρου or ἁρμάτων), the verb καταβαίνω means "dismount," meaning, of course, that there is a strong possibility that Jesus had to dismount his execution pole somehow so he can step down from it, because some how, he, too, is "sitting" or "sinking down" on it. When one compares this with Mark 10:35-40 and the remarks of Seneca on Maeceneas' preferences for the tortures of crucifixion over suicide, to me it is fairly obvious in this story that this is what Jesus has to do.

A.7. The Removal from the Cross.

Next, we have Joseph of Arimathea request the body of Jesus so he can bury it. Then he does so, right before the sun was to set. In Mark chapter 15 verse 44, Pilate was surprised that Jesus was already dead. The Greek for "was surprised" (ἐθαύμασεν) expresses a sense of amazement, with a suggestion of the beginning of speculation as to why it came about. Why? Because crucifixion was supposed to be a slow, lingering death that would take two days or more. Ditto for impalement, unless the executioner pierces any vital organs. Yet according to Mark, Jesus died after only six hours. Pilate then checks with the centurion and, after that was out of the way, permits Joseph to do so, and in verse 46, we see him taking Jesus' body down from the cross (καθελὼν αὐτὸν). Now here, καθελών (καθαιρέω) means "take down, bring down, depose, dethrone (see Justin Martyr Dialog. w/ Tryph. 73, above) take down as a reward or prize, take and carry off, etc."

Conclusions from this? First, Jesus died far too soon. Second, the body was suspended and needed to be taken down to the ground for Joseph of Arimathea to bury it. (What about the other two?)

A.8. Conclusions.

And so here is where I draw my conclusions on what Mark is saying about the gear of Jesus' crucifixion:

1. It was a pole one could wear.
2. It was designed so one could sit, sink, or settle onto.
3. Consumption of a myrrh and wine tincture could make the sufferer sexually stimulated (as well as drunk).
4. The use of  σταυρόω indicates that a "fencing with pales", or a "pile driving (impalement)" is going on, or both.
5. Jesus died far too soon.
6. The bodies of those hanged were suspended above the surface of the Earth. 

It appears the gear of Jesus' execution was one of four items:

1. An impaling stake with a blunt point,
2. A simgle vertical pole with a central point wherewith one sat, sank, settled, or "rode" when he hung in the down position, 
3. It was a multiple pole frame with the same type of attachment to sit on, or
4. A horizontal beam resting on two poles and suspending Jesus, who is impaled on a third, pointed pole in the middle.

Next at bat: Matthew.