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.”

Crucifixion the Bodily Support - "Biblical Evidence" – Installment 2.

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


Introduction.

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

I am treating the four gospels as separate, and then will harmonize the whole lot, to see what differences come up.

Previously I looked at the “Biblical Evidences” in Mark, and came to the conclusion that the instrument of Jesus’ execution could not be determined because four possible types could match its functions as described in predictions beforehand and by the prior meaning of the Greek verb that was used to denote “crucify”.

B. Matthew.

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

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

The first passage occurs in Matthew chapter 10, as Jesus sends out the Twelve to preach round about Galilee and gives them authority to drive out devils and heal the sick. He segues into the cost of discipleship and they might be arrested and even killed. And then he says families will break up because of the sword he will bring upon the Earth, finishing up with saying that those who love their biological family more than him are not worthy of him. Then he says this:

… and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.

Matthew 10:38-39 NIV

Here again, as in Mark, σταυρὸν would probably mean "pole" as in the patibulum or crossarm of a two-beam or two-pole cross, simple or single-horned, or as in an impaling stake, or as in 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 a small enough thickness and short enough length to be portable. This, of course, precludes the Jehovah's Witnesses' stake because it’s too long and far too big in diameter. A heavy two-beam cross made of 6 x 6 or larger dimensional lumber is also precluded.

The second passage occurs in Matthew 16 and the scene there is identical with the scene in Mark chapter 8. Jesus predicts his death that he must suffer many things at the hands of the elders, chief priests and teachers of the Torah, and be killed and rise again the third day. Peter objects and Jesus sternly reprimands him. And again he tells the whole crowd of disciples around him,

“If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will find it.

Matthew 16:24, 25 NIV

Again, the Greek for “cross” is σταυρὸν, "pole". And the author indicates that he knows that taking up one’s “pole” is the beginning of one’s death march, escorted by his executioners.


B.2. "Grant that these sons of mine 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. This time they will crucify him (as opposed to just killing him in Mark 10). And then he will rise again on the third day.

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

Then the mother of Zebedee’s sons came to Jesus with her sons and, kneeling down, asked a favor of him.

“What is it you want?” he asked.

She said, “Grant that one of these two sons of mine may sit at your right and the other at your left in your kingdom.”

“You don’t know what you are asking,” Jesus said to them. “Can you drink the cup I am going to drink?”

“We can,” they answered.

Jesus said to them, “You will indeed drink from my cup, 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 by my Father.”

Matthew 20: 20-23 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 to 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. And the baptism? It could very well be his death, for in Romans 6:3, 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 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 foreshadowing 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, as I have explained in more detail in my article about Mark.

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? Again, what Maecenas preferred and Seneca rebuked his verse for (Epistles101:10-14) applies here, as I have also gone into further detail previously.

What Mrs. Zebedee was asking of Jesus for her two sons, and didn't know it, and they didn’t know it either, 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 already told that they were going to take their seats on actual royal thrones in the World to Come, judging the Twelve Tribes of Israel (Matthew 19:16-30).

B.3. "And then they fenced him with pales"

Some scholars like Martin Hangel (Crucifixion, p. 25) state 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.

And what Matthew says, seems to be copied line-for-line from Mark:

Then he released Barabbas to them. But he had Jesus flogged, and handed him over to be crucified.

Then the governor’s soldiers took Jesus into the Praetorium and gathered the whole company of soldiers around him. They stripped him and put a scarlet robe on him, and then twisted together a crown of thorns and set it on his head. They put a staff in his right hand and knelt in front of him and mocked him. “Hail, king of the Jews!” they said. They spit on him, and took the staff and struck him on the head again and again. After they had mocked him, they took off the robe and put his own clothes on him. Then they led him away to crucify him.

As they were going out, they met a man from Cyrene, named Simon, and they forced him to carry the cross. They came to a place called Golgotha (which means The Place of the Skull). There they offered Jesus wine to drink, mixed with gall; but after tasting it, he refused to drink it. When they had crucified him, they divided up his clothes by casting lots.

Matthew 27:26-35 NIV

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, that is, Simon of Cyrene carry his cross (σταυρὸν - pole), arriving at Golgotha (Κρανίου Τόπος, lit.: Place of the Cranium), the refused offering of a tincture of wine and gall, 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 Thucydides The Peloponnesian War 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.

And instead of a tincture of wine and myrrh, Matthew says the Roman soldiers gave Jesus a tincture of wine and gall (χολῆς “bile, cuttle-fish ink, a disgust”). The author of Matthew is invoking Psalm 69:21 as a prophecy here: “They put gall in my food and gave me vinegar for my thirst.”

B.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 maiestatis?

And sitting down, they kept watch over him there. Above his head they placed the written charge against him: this is jesus, the king of the jews.

Matthew 27:36, 37 NIV

The Greek for verse 37 is: "καὶ ἐπέθηκαν ἐπάνω τῆς κεφαλῆς αὐτοῦ τὴν αἰτίαν αὐτοῦ γεγραμμένην ΟΥΤΟΣ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΙΗΣΟΥΣ Ο ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣ ΤΩΝ ΙΟΥΔΑΙΩΝ." Transliterated as: "And they put* over the head of him of the accusation of him written**: THIS IS JESUS, THE KING OF THE JEWS." Now the titulus was placed above his head, and the Greek implies it was placed on something that would keep it there.

* also placed, laid, applied
** also inscribed, engraved, scratched

B.5. And Who Were with Him?

If you recall Matthew 20: 20-23, Mrs. Zebedee came up with her two sons James and John to Jesus and asking that they get to sit beside him one at his right and the other at his left, naively thinking 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?

Two robbers were crucified with him, one on his right and one on his left.

Matthew 27:38 NIV

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?" He has to sit, too. Remember, the acuta crux "pointed stake" that Tertullian called a sedilis excessu "projection of a seat" was there not to alleviate the suffering of the crucified, but to aggravate it by introducing horrible pain… and completely humiliating the condemned, utterly. If the Romans dealt this part of the extreme punishment to those convicted with lesser charge, they certainly would have subjected with this thing those in the same group convicted of a greater charge.


B.6. The Mockery.

Then there are the insults heaped on Jesus.

Those who passed by hurled insults at him, shaking their heads and saying, “You who are going to destroy the temple and build it in three days, save yourself! Come down from the cross, if you are the Son of God!”

In the same way the chief priests, the teachers of the law and the elders mocked him. “He saved others,” they said, “but he can’t save himself! He’s the King of Israel! Let him come down now from the cross, and we will believe in him. He trusts in God. Let God rescue him now if he wants him, for he said, ‘I am the Son of God.’” In the same way the robbers who were crucified with him also heaped insults on him.

Matthew 27:39-44 NIV

The part of the insults that I will focus on is the taunts "save yourself! Come down from the cross!" (σῶσον σεαυτὸν… καὶ κατάβηθι ἀπὸ τοῦ σταυροῦ) in verse 40 and "He’s the King of Israel! Let him come down now from the cross" (βασιλεὺς Ἰσραήλ ἐστιν. καταβάτω νῦν ἀπὸ τοῦ σταυροῦ) in verse 42. In verse 40 the Greek transliterates as: - "save yourself,… and come down from the pole." The relevant line in verse 42 transliterates from the Greek as: "King of Israel he is. Let him come down now from the pole."

Now, in the Koine Greek the verbs, shown for "come down" are conjugated from καταβαίνω. As I have said before, 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 has to dismount the pole somehow so he can step down from it, because he, too, is "mounted" or "stuck" on it, in mid-air. Note Matthew like Mark does not mention the use of nails at all. When one compares this with Matthew 20:20-23 and the remarks of Seneca, it is fairly obvious what is happening here.

B.7. The Deposition.

Again, Joseph of Arimathea asks Pilate for the body of Jesus, and Pilate orders the body released. And so, Josephus takes down the body, wraps it up and lays it in an unused tomb just like in the other three gospels, except Matthew states Joseph carved it out of the rock for his own use. The removal of the body from the execution pole or frame is as follows:

Joseph took the body, wrapped it in a clean linen cloth, and placed it in his own new tomb that he had cut out of the rock. He rolled a big stone in front of the entrance to the tomb and went away.

Matthew 27:59, 60 NIV

The Greek for “took” is λαβὼν, a conjugate of λαμβάνω, “take, lay ahold of to take or receive, grasp, seize, carry off as a prize of booty.” So the implication here is Joseph may be doing this for the Sanhedrin. Which is also implied by what follows the next day when the Sanhedrin approaches Pilate and ask that the tomb be guarded. It is obvious they were somehow informed that he was placed there. Who else could have informed them in this story, except Joseph of Arimathea? Or are we to assume that the Sanhedrin had spies watching them, when Matthew, like Mark, mention only the women who followed Jesus as the ones who were watching? Or that the women themselves were the spies?

B.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 (or beam) one could wear.
2. It was designed so one could sit, sink, or settle onto it.
3. It could have been designed so that a sign could be placed on top or alternatively the sign was placed on a separate pole immediately behind it.
4. The use of σταυρόω indicates that a "fencing with pales", or a "pile driving (impalement)" is going on, or both.

It appears the gear of Jesus' execution would be:

1. An impaling stake with a separate pole right behind, for the sign.
2. An ordinary pole with a spike the condemned had to sit on.
3. A two-beam or two-pole cross with the same kind of spike.
4. An overhead beam supported on two poles, from which the condemned hanged, with a stake in the middle on which the condemned was impaled.

Next up: Luke and Acts.