Crucifixion the Bodily Support - The Acuta Crux in Patristic Writings (18)

Bloodstone magical gem / intaglio,
Eastern Mediterranean, ca. 2nd - 3rd C. CE.
Source: British Museum.

(Part 7r 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     Part 7f     Part 7g      Part 7h
Part 7i      Part 7j     Part 7k      Part 7l

Part 7m    Part 7n   Part 7o      Part 7p

Part 7q

Wrap-up.

This is a summation of what several Antenicene Fathers of the Church understood about Roman Crucifixion.

The first was (Pseudo-) Barnabas, (fl. between 70 and 131 CE) who understood the purpose of the penalty was for the destruction and ruin of the body to the point of death. The gear of execution was shaped like a 'T' and it was likened to a tree that was bent over and then made to stand upright, and which dripped with blood. The punishment was meted out so that the person so executed was suspended with his arms stretched out to the sides, similar to a tropaeum.

The next was Justin Martyr (103 - 165 CE), who in I Apology 55 compared the pole to various everyday objects like the mast of a ship with its crossarm, a plough, certain tools, a man standing upright with arms outstretched, and the Roman military's standards, vexillae (banners) and their tropaeums of victory. He even noted that the images of the Caesars were consecrated on (or with) this form at their funerals, and the Caesars themselves declared to be gods by inscriptions; compare to the Gospel accounts of Jesus' crucifixion and you'll see there is great similarity to the two.

Elsewhere in I Apology (ch. 35), Justin Martyr describes the crucifixion of Jesus by the Jews as fulfillment of prophecies midrashed out of the Septuagint (Isaiah 9:6: "The Government shall be upon his shoulders;" a mishmash of Isaiah 58.2 and 65:2: "I have spread out my hands to a disobedient and gainsaying people, to those who walk in a way that is not good, they now ask me of judgement, and dare to draw near to God;" Psalm 22: 17, 19: "They pierced my hands and feet, and for my vesture they cast lots."), narrating a sequence of events that conforms to the account in the Gospel of Peter.

In his Dialogue with Trypho 40, Justin Martyr discerns the crucifixion of Jesus in the Samaritans' (and perhaps the Jews') set-up for roasting their Passover lambs: a spit is inserted through the nether parts and fed through up to the mouth, transfixing the animal, while the front paws are spread out on a horizontal suspension beam. The weird thing is, this set-up is more indicative of one way to impale a person: suspend him by the wrists over an impaling stake; gravity will cause his arms to be stretched out and his torso to be rectally impaled, as in the conjectured example at left and possibly depicted in the gem at the top.

In chapter 72 of the same Dialogue, Justin Martyr makes a complaint that the Jewish religious authorities have conspired to remove various passages out of the Septuagint, for example, a passage that includes the phrase "that we shall humble him on a standard"  (the meaning of the Greek ταπεινοῦν "to humble" includes "sexually violate" as a rare occurrance) out of Esdras and "Let us lay wood on his bread" (lit.: "Let us throw wood into his bread") out of Jeremiah 11:19 (the second passage is still extant in Jer. 11:19 LXX). And these two passages Justin cites as prophecies of the Jews taking counsel together to crucify Jesus and to put him to death.

This is followed up in Dialogue ch. 73 with another complaint: Justin Martyr makes a charge that the Jews removed "from the wood" out of the 96th Psalm (he calls it the 95th); otherwise the first line of Psalm 96:10 "The LORD reigns" would have read "The LORD reigns from the wood." This, of course, Justin uses to invent another prophecy of the Crucifixion: that God in the person of Jesus was to reign from the wood of the pole. Which means Justin viewed the gear of Jesus' execution as a sort of throne. Well rulers sit on their thrones and the Roman poet Maceneas and rhetorician Seneca the Younger both knew, that the seat or sedile of the Roman execution pole consisted of or included an acuta crux (impaling stake or penetrating thorn).  

In chapter 91 of Dialogue, Justin Martyr compares the extremities of the Roman execution pole to the horns of a unicorn: its highest extremity (top end of the main pole, or the titulus signpost) and the ends of the transverse patibulum, applied to the pole as a yard arm to a mast, stuck up or out as "horns." Plus there was one last piece in the middle which actually stood out as a horn and resembled a horn when it was skillfully shaped and assembled with the other "horns," and upon which were suspended, or rather "rode" those who were crucified (ἐφ᾽ ᾧ ἐποχοῦνται οἱ σταυρούμενοι). The Greek verb ἐποχοῦνται is the 3rd person plural present middle/passive indicative of  ἐποχέομαι, itself the 1st person singular middle/passive indicative of  ἐποχεύω "spring upon, cover," as in the action "of the male animal [who is acting as a 'top']." (See this Greek verb chart.) This would indicate that the Roman execution pole itself crucified the criminal not only by suspension racking but also by penetration. Various Latin translations of Dialogue 91 strongly support this.

In Dialogue 105, Justin Martyr finishes up by claiming that even the design of the σταυρός (pole) was prophesied in the 22nd Psalm, v. 22: "Save me from the lion's mouth, and my humility from the horns of the unicorns (μονοκερώντων: plural of μονοκέρως, 'with but one horn, wild oxen,' or monokeros plinii)."

Irenaeus (130 - 200 CE), in Against Heresies 2.24.4, a chapter on numerology (!), notes that the device had five ends and high points. One of those was in the middle where the one who was affixed with nails found rest, found support or arrested his downward slump.

Pozzuoli Graffito. Dated to ca. 100 CE.

Tertullian (160 - 220 CE) himself was aware that the execution pole had a seat which penetrated the sufferer: he compared the palus (pale) in / from the middle of the stipes (main pole) as single-horned; the context indicates the comparison was to the front horn of the rhinoceros. (Against Marcion 3.18.3,4; An Answer to the Jews 10.2.7) He quotes Psalm 22:22 and notes, like Justin Martyr, that the horns were the apices (apexes: end points and high points) of the crux (An Answer to the Jews 10:13). He further stated that Jesus stuck fast (inhaerens) to the horns (cornibus) i.e., endpoints, of the device. We probably can rule out an extension of the central pole of the frame above the transverse beam as the single-horn, since Tertullian understands it to have been shaped like a capital T (Against Marcion 3.22.6). In his Apology 16.7,8 he notes that every beam set in the ground was a portion of a crux, and whereas he charges the Romans of worshiping gods made from parts of crosses, but Tertullian heaps scorn upon them, saying "we, as luck would have it, worship a god whole [or uninjured] and complete (integrum et totum)." In To the Nations 1.12.3,4 Tertullian notes that a complete execution pole (tota crux) included a projection / rising-above / aberration / transgression of a seat (sedilis excessu). This is the earliest written mention of the noun sedile used for the part of the frame that served to support the person who is nailed thereto, with sedilis denoting its purpose (seat) and excessu its nature (projection, rising, aberration, transgression, etc).

When Tertullian mentions the torture-execution of Regulus, he refers to a crux as both a siege-engine of the body and as a pointed item that pierced a person, noting Regulus was subjected to numerous cruces that were driven in a sort of stong-box which Regulus himself was stuffed into (To the Nations 1.18.10, To the Martyrs 4.6). 

Elsewhere (The Apology 9.2 and 12.3) Tertullian is aware of the similarity of the execution pole to the Roman tropaeum, noting the Priests of Baal-Hammon (Saturn of Africa) were hanged on trees as if on votive execution poles and that the body of the Romans' god was first dedicated on a patibulum (gibbet).

Tertullian talks of the Deuteronomic curse (Dt. 21:22-23), "cursed of God is everyone who would have been suspended on a tree (suspensus fuerit in ligno)" which last phrase could also mean "who would have been suspended by [anything made out of] wood." (An Answer to the Jews 10:1-3) He notes the peculiar atrocity of the Roman crucifixion, the nailing of hands and feet, noting line in Psalm 22 "They stabbed my hands and feet" (Answer 10:13) and admits that the hands and feet are not destroyed except for the one who is suspended on a tree / by an item made out of wood (Answer 13.11).

Tertullian further notes that Roman crucifixion (or impalement as in the Caucasus) was considered a harse, fierce death (Against Marcion 1.1.3), where the body is spread out on a gibbet or by it (in patibulo) (On Modesty 22.3). he also notes that the Romans tortured the person to be tortured first, and treated with every form of outrage. (To the Martyrs 6.1)  He also notes it was a shameful sort of death, upbraiding Marcion for attempting to destroy the only hope of the world, the indispensable dishonor of the Crucifixion wherein Jesus was suffigi: "suffixed" (fixed underneath, i.e., impaled) (On the Flesh of Christ 5.1, 3). He also notes that this sort of execution involved causing wood to go into a person's body, i.e., penetration, quoting Jeremiah 11:19 as a prophecy of the death of Jesus (Answer 10.12). Of course, Tertullian also found the union of two males to be utterly shameful (Against the Valentinians 11.1).

Likewise, Arnobius (fl. 284 - 305 CE) in Against the Heathen 1.36 and 1.40 acknowledges that crucifixion was a harsh, severe death that stained the convict with a mark of turpitude (shamefulness, baseness, foulness, indecency, etc.) and was unworthy for a free man even if he was found guilty, and a death where one died nailed to a patibulum (transverse beam, or cross-like execution pole)

Melito of Sardis (120? - 180 CE) in  his On the Passion 96, 97 notes that in the punishment the sufferer was hanged (or suspended), fixed (or fixed [with nails], or impaled) and firmly supported on (or made fast upon or firmly fixed to) some kind of "tree;" the sufferer was insulted by this punishment and  not allowed any covering to hide his nakedness. The firm support on this "tree" implies a three-dimensional shape to the gear, with some kind of strut, beam or hook to support the person who was completely exhausted or had passed on. If it was a near-vertical sharpened horn-like timber that penetrated the person, the rendered translations "made fast upon" and "firmly fixed to" which alternate with "firmly supported on" in the third phrase of line 96 make a lot more sense; so does the translation "impaled" that alternates with "fixed" and "fixed with nails" in the second phrase.

Origen (185 - 254 CE), in his eight-volume work Against Celsus noted or agreed that the Roman penalty was a most shameful death (Against Celsus 2.31, 6.10; Commentary on Matthew 27.22 1), a death in which the body was stretched as if on a rack (Against Celsus 8.41). He also noted that a crucifixion was a slow, lingering death that typically lasted thirty-six hours  unless they were stabbed first. (Commentary on Matthew 5.140). He also agrees with Celsus that the gear was a σταυρός (pole, either plain or crossarmed; also an upright pale) to which one was nailed (Against Celsus 6.34) and like Diodorus Siculus and Philo 2, uses σταυρός to denote the punishment rather than the instrument of the punishment (Against Celsus 2.69). He also, like Celsus, uses the word σκόλοψ (impaling stake or thorn) to described the execution gear that Jesus was attached to (Against Celsus 2.55, 2.58, 2.68, 2.69). Origen also used the verbs σταυρόω (fence with pales, drive piles, impale, crucify) and ἀνασκολοπίζω (fix on a pole, impale) even though he indicates in Against Celsus 2.69 that he understood ἀνασκολοπίζω etymologically as "to suspend upon something pointed (i.e., a thorn or pointed stake)" 3 (Against Celsus 2.36, 2.69, 3.32). Also as quoted by Eusebius (Church History 3.1), Celsus uses the verb ἀνασκολοπίζω to describe the method of Peter's death. 4

Vivat Crux. Dated 79 CE at the latest.

In Divine Institutes, Lactantius (240 - 320 CE) uses several terms to describe the suspension-attachment of a person on a crux. He uses suffigo (fix or fasten beneath) to denote the attachment of Jesus to the crux; the verb is used both to describe an attaching of a sail to a yardarm so it would hang below and an impaling of a head on a pike. Noting the figure in the Pozzuoli Graffito above and Vivat Crux to the right, cruci suffigo definitely meant both impale and attach to hang below. He also used affigo (affix as a brand), describes the suspension-attachment as suspensus atque affixus / suffixus (suspended and affixed / fastened beneath -- it appears the prisoner was suspended first), describes the suspension as in crucem sublatus (hoisted onto a crux and left suspended there), stated that the attached prisoner hangs on it and by means of it (qua pependit). He quotes Seneca in noting that the arms were stretched out along a transverse beam (extendiae per patibulum). He also used patibulum and crux interchangeably, indicating the first was not always merely a transverse attachment, nor the second just a stake or simple pole only. Lactantius also quotes an oracle by the Milesian Apollo who said that "γόμφοις καὶ σκολόπεσσι (with nails and pales / the crux)" Jesus endured a bitter death. He also understood Jeremiah 11:19 in the Septuagint "ἐμβάλωμεν ξύλον εἰς τὸν ἄρτον αὐτοῦ (let us throw wood onto / into his bread)" as a prophecy of the Crucifixion although it really describes a conspiracy of Jeremiah and modern scholars as far as I know see no connection with Jesus' crucifixion at all. Lactantius, like the rest of the ancient writers, saw the penalty as a manifestly infamous, notorious, polluted and shameful type of death; to inflict this on one who is not guilty of any crime or was of a station that would make him immune to the punishment was seen as a crime, an outrage, an insulting act and an enormity.

Athanasius, (296 or 298 to 373 CE) who probably knew nothing of the σταυρός / crux that was the gear of Jesus' execution except as a cross, also used Jeremiah 11:19 "δεῦτε, καὶ ἐμβάλωμεν ξύλον εἰς τὸν ἄρτον αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἐκτρίψωμεν αὐτὸν ἀπὸ γῆς ζώντων. (Come, let us cast wood into His bread, and wipe [lit.: rub] Him out from the land of the living)." The Greek ἐκτρίψωμεν (ἐκτρίβω) could mean, "wear out by constant rubbing." This line in Jeremiah Athanasius takes as indicative only of a death that takes place on wood (ἐν ξύλῳ γινόμενος with  ἐν ξύλῳ having a possible double meaning "by means of wood").

A Roman tropaeum, representing Victory.
Even the godess Victoria (Nike) is present.

Minucius Felix (fl. between 160 - 270 CE) in Octavius, through his protagonist of the same name, when confronted with the charge from from his antagonist Caecilius, that Christians worshiped a criminal and his crux, simply dismissed it as one of several scurrilous charges, lodged in between and serving to link those which Caecilius thought or actually said were gross indecencies and cruel atrocities: "he who explains their ceremonies by reference to a man punished by extreme suffering for his wickedness, and to the deadly wood 5 of the cross, appropriates fitting altars for reprobate and wicked men, that they may worship what they deserve." Octavius does not explain why Christians worship a perceived criminal and his crux, now cross, he denies the whole thing completely, essentially including them in those things it was not permissible for Christians to even hear, and that it was shameful (or defiling) to the person who has to defend against such charges with his own words, and that it was scarcely imaginable to be believed to be done by chaste and moral persons, unless, of course, it was done by Caecilius and his fellow Non-Christian Romans themselves. And with such crux-worship, as with the charge of cock-worship immediately previous, this Octavius proceeds to do, finishing up with the observation that the Roman tropaeums of Victory not only resembled what he called a simple crux (either crux simplex, crux commissa and/or crux immissa by Justus Lipsius' terminology), but also a man affixed to it! And as seen in the relief depicting a tropaeum above, the method of "affixion" appears to be impalement, for the armor surrounds the tree.

Conclusion:

Although only Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian and Origen give us enough information that explicitly describes the architecture or function of the typical Roman execution pole, and Lactantius appears to do so, Origen, Tertullian, Lactantius and the others mentioned here who do not give sufficient information, with the exception of Athanasius, are in agreement that Roman crucifixion was the most humiliating death imaginable, carried out upon the suffer, stripped to utter nudity. We also know that these same authors used Jeremiah 11:19 "let us throw / cast / send wood into his bread" as a prophecy of the Crucifixion, wherein the wood was in reference to the Roman execution pole, and the bread the body of Jesus: which would mean that into the body of a person so suspended, an item of wood was caused to go. And since that item of wood, called acuta crux by Maceneas and Seneca the Younger, seems to have been described as a thorn or as the front horn of a rhinoceros or a monokeros plinii, the introduction of it would introduce three kinds of horrible pain (piercing, harsh rubbing and finally stretching), yet perhaps at the same time cause the sufferer's genitals to become prominent, thus increasing his shame. This is because the typical Roman method was a homoeroticized form of (mini-) impalement, wherein the impaled person was literally fucked on display and nailed to his gallows. And the compulsory dance of the execution only made it more shameful and more excruciatingly painful because every time he moves, the anal thorn would rub against and savage his tender membranes.

Notes:

1. "mors turpissima crucis (the most vile death of the crux)"
2. Diodorus Siculus, Library of History 20.54.4, "ὥστε σταυρῷ παραπλησίανεἶναι τὴν ὕβριν ἅμα καὶ τὴν τιμωρίαν (the violence and the punishment was almost tantamount to a σταυρός-punishment);" Philo, In Flaccum 72, "ἡ τελευταία καὶ ἔφεδρος τιμωρία σταυρὸς ἦν (where the last and seated / reserved penalty was a σταυρὸς-punishment)." Nota bene:  a σταυρὸς-punishment was a Roman crucifixion.

3. "ἐπί σκόλοπος κρεμασθῆναι (to have been hanged upon a thorn [i.e., a short impaling stake])"
4. "ανασκολοπισθε κατά κεφαλης (he was impaled down upon the head)”
5. "crucis ligna feralia (dangerous timbers of the crux [or lethal woods of the crux])."

Crucifixion the Bodily Support - The Acuta Crux in Patristic Writings (17)

Alexamenos Graffito. Vivat Crux is visible behind it,
if viewed in certain browsers. 

(Part 7q 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     Part 7f     Part 7g      Part 7h
Part 7i      Part 7j     Part 7k      Part 7l

Part 7m    Part 7n   Part 7o      Part 7p

Minucius Felix.

Minucius Felix (flourished betw. 160 and 300 CE) addresses the charge that Christians worshiped a criminal and his execution pole (crux) by denying it completely in a refutation of a string of sexual misconduct and atrocity charges.

First, the charges: the antagonist Cæcilius brings out the indictments: that they worship a suspended (hanged and impaled) criminal and even the instrument of his execution, they worship the head of an ass (donkey), and even the nature of their priest or pontiff. Moreover, they initiate those they recruit by the slaughter and blood of an infant, and engage in indiscriminate intercourse following their Agape Meal. To wit:

Everywhere also there is mingled among them a certain religion of lust, and they call one another promiscuously brothers and sisters, that even a not unusual debauchery may by the intervention of that sacred name become incestuous: it is thus that their vain and senseless superstition glories in crimes. Nor, concerning these things, would intelligent report speak of things so great and various, and requiring to be prefaced by an apology, unless truth were at the bottom of it.

I hear that they adore the head of an ass, that basest of creatures, consecrated by I know not what silly persuasion—a worthy and appropriate religion for such manners. Some say that they worship the virilia of their pontiff and priest, and adore the nature, as it were, of their common parent. I know not whether these things are false; certainly suspicion is applicable to secret and nocturnal rites; and he who explains their ceremonies by reference to a man punished by extreme suffering for his wickedness, and to the deadly wood of the cross, appropriates fitting altars for reprobate and wicked men, that they may worship what they deserve. 

Now the story about the initiation of young novices is as much to be detested as it is well known. An infant covered over with meal, that it may deceive the unwary, is placed before him who is to be stained with their rites: this infant is slain by the young pupil, who has been urged on as if to harmless blows on the surface of the meal, with dark and secret wounds. Thirstily— O horror!— they lick up its blood; eagerly they divide its limbs. By this victim they are pledged together; with this consciousness of wickedness they are covenanted to mutual silence. Such sacred rites as these are more foul than any sacrileges. 

And of their banqueting it is well known all men speak of it everywhere; even the speech of our Cirtensian testifies to it. On a solemn day they assemble at the feast, with all their children, sisters, mothers, people of every sex and of every age. There, after much feasting, when the fellowship has grown warm, and the fervour of incestuous lust has grown hot with drunkenness, a dog that has been tied to the chandelier is provoked, by throwing a small piece of offal beyond the length of a line by which he is bound, to rush and spring; and thus the conscious light being overturned and extinguished in the shameless darkness, the connections of abominable lust involve them in the uncertainty of fate. Although not all in fact, yet in consciousness all are alike incestuous, since by the desire of all of them everything is sought for which can happen in the act of each individual.

Minucius Felix, Octavius 9 1

The first charge is that the Christians, by calling each other brothers and sisters, by virtue of such, turn even what Romans would call tame debaucheries into incestuous congresses. The second charge is the worship of the head of an ass, that is, a donkey. This is seen in the Alexamenos above, assuming, of course, that the person being mocked for his religion was a Christian. 2 The third charge is that they worship the virilia of their priest and pontiff: the nature of their common "parent," and it is clear that the argument is referring to the veneration of their clergy's genitalia: in short, cock-worship.

This leads into the fourth charge, that one "who explains of [the Christians'] ceremonies by reference to a man punished by extreme suffering for his wickedness, and to the deadly wood of the cross, appropriates fitting altars for reprobate and wicked men, that they may worship what they deserve."  (Et qui hominem summo supplicio pro facinore punitum et crucis ligna feralia eorum caerimonias fabulatur, congruentia perditis sceleratisque tribuit altaria, ut id colant quod merentur 3)

The fourth charge sets up the fifth and sixth charges, where Cæcilius indicts the Christians of having an initiate sacrifice a hidden infant and consuming it in a Thysteam Banquet (rite of cannibalism), and describes the Chriatians' periodic Agape meals as a gathering together for a feast followed by the dousing of a lamp and engagement by all in indiscriminate intercourse with all.

Now, the rebuttals: Minucius Felix' protagonist Octavius asserts that not only are the Christians falsely accused of sacrilege, indecency, sexual promiscuity and infanticide, but also the non-Christian Romans themselves are giulty of the same or even worse crimes. He first addresses the second and third charges:

Thence arises what you say that you hear, that an ass's head is esteemed among us a divine thing. Who is such a fool as to worship this? Who is so much more foolish as to believe that it is an object of worship? Unless that you even consecrate whole asses in your stables, together with your Epona, and religiously devour those same asses with Isis. Also you offer up and worship the heads of oxen and of wethers, and you dedicate gods mingled also of a goat and a man, and gods with the faces of dogs and lions. Do you not adore and feed Apis the ox, with the Egyptians? And you do not condemn their sacred rites instituted in honour of serpents, and crocodiles, and other beasts, and birds, and fishes, of which if any one were to kill one of these gods, he is even punished with death. These same Egyptians, together with very many of you, are not more afraid of Isis than they are of the pungency of onions, nor of Serapis more than they tremble at the basest noises produced by the foulness of their bodies. 

He also who fables against us about our adoration of the members of the priest, tries to confer upon us what belongs really to himself. (Ista enim impudicitæ eorum forsitan sacra sint, apud quos sexus omnis membris omnibus prostat, apud quos iota impudicitia vocatur urbanitas; qui scortorum licentiæ invident, qui medios viros lambunt, libidinoso ore inguinibus inhærescunt, homines malæ linguæ; etiam si tacerent, quos prius tædescit impudicitiæ suæ; quam pudescit.) Abomination! They suffer on themselves such evil deeds, as no age is so effeminate as to be able to bear, and no slavery so cruel as to be compelled to endure.

Minucius Felix, Octavius 28 1

First Octavius throws the charge of ass's head worship back at Cæcilius with examples of Greco-Roman and Egyptian gods. Then the charge of the worship of the gentials of the  Christians' pontiff and priests by accusing the Romans of doing the same, and what naturally follows after (fellatio = dick sucking). Unfortunately, New Advent has been charitable enough to the sensibilities of the most easily offended of Christians, and the fears of others that an 'impressionable' teenage male would be automatically encouraged to do what is described therein if he understood it, as to leave the important part untranslated. So here I translate it: "Namely, those gross indecencies of them perhaps may be sacred rites, in the presence of all sexes he offers himself for sale to all with 'members', among those with an iota of same-sex promiscuity he is called urbane; those who refuse the liberty of prostitutes, who lick men's middles, with a wanton mouth they become 'stuck' onto the privy parts, men of an evil tongue, but if yet again they remain silent, one is at first offended at his own sexual impurity, which makes one ashamed." And he finishes up with "which no age could be so effeminate to bear, nor condition of slavery so cruel to compel." (quod nec aetas potest pati mollior nec cogi servitus durior) From this coda Octavius goes on to address the next charge: that Christians worship a criminal and his execution pole.

And how does Minucius Felix' Octavius deal with the charges of the worship of a criminal, and the execution stake and frame that he was impaled upon? By denying everything!

These, and such as these infamous things, we are not at liberty even to hear; it is even disgraceful with any more words to defend ourselves from such charges. For you pretend that those things are done by chaste and modest persons, which we should not believe to be done at all, unless you proved that they were true concerning yourselves.

For in that you attribute to our religion the worship of a criminal and his cross, you wander far from the neighbourhood of the truth, in thinking either that a criminal deserved, or that an earthly being was able, to be believed God. Miserable indeed is that man whose whole hope is dependent on mortal man, for all his help is put an end to with the extinction of the man. The Egyptians certainly choose out a man for themselves whom they may worship; him alone they propitiate; him they consult about all things; to him they slaughter victims; and he who to others is a god, to himself is certainly a man whether he will or no, for he does not deceive his own consciousness, if he deceives that of others. Moreover, a false flattery disgracefully caresses princes and kings, not as great and chosen men, as is just, but as gods; whereas honour is more truly rendered to an illustrious man, and love is more pleasantly given to a very good man. Thus they invoke their deity, they supplicate their images, they implore their Genius, that is, their demon; and it is safer to swear falsely by the genius of Jupiter than by that of a king.

Crosses, moreover, we neither worship nor wish for. You, indeed, who consecrate gods of wood, adore wooden crosses perhaps as parts of your gods. For your very standards, as well as your banners; and flags of your camp, what else are they but crosses glided and adorned? Your victorious trophies not only imitate the appearance of a simple cross, but also that of a man affixed to it. We assuredly see the sign of a cross, naturally, in the ship when it is carried along with swelling sails, when it glides forward with expanded oars; and when the military yoke is lifted up, it is the sign of a cross; and when a man adores God with a pure mind, with hands outstretched. Thus the sign of the cross either is sustained by a natural reason, or your own religion is formed with respect to it.

Minucius Felix, Octavius 29 1

First, Octavius summarizes the previous charges he's addressed, the present charge he is addressing, and the remaining charges he will address, as a collection of infamous things (propudia: infamous or shameful acts or deeds) that Christians are not even at liberty to hear, let alone defend against them with words. 4 And one of those infamous things is the worship of a man (even if he was a Godman, both fully God and fully man) and the crux he was attached to.

Concerning the Cross, Octavius asserts that it was far from the neighbourhood of the truth for Caecilius to charge Christians with the worship of a noxious criminal and his torture-stake! 5 

He refutes such charges that the Christians worship a criminal, not in asserting that the man was God, or that it was right and proper that He should be crucified even though it would be received as a scandal by the Jews and Roman alike, but by using an example from Egypt how the Egyptians worshiped their Pharoahs (apparently it was not safe to explicitly cite the imperial cult!) but once they passed on, they were of no more benefit to their worshippers; and moreover, such worship is a disgraceful flattery, a caressing and a puffing up of leaders, which inevitably appeals to their egos.  

Roman tropaea.

And the Cross itself? That Octavius throws back at Caecilius, noting that the Romans' standards, their banners, their flags and even their trophies of victory (tropaea victricia) were all based on the schematic of a simple cross crucis simplicis: which in these cases, was (usually) a pole with a crossarm. And of the last, the dressed trophy (tropaeum) resembled not only a crux simplex 5, but also one with a man affixed to it.  Now in these two examples of the Roman tropaeum, it is the decor that makes the object resemble a utility pole ~ or a cross ~ with a man attached to it, or because the Roman or enemy armor was placed around the frame, impaled on it. Either way, Octavius' rejoinder indicates that there could have been an accepted convention at the time that a criminal attached to such a device was himself considered a human trophy! After this, he goes on to cite several examples of how a figure of cross can be seen in everyday objects and situations, and also in nature.

Minucius Felix's protagonist finishes up by adressing the charges of the sacrifice of an infant, of Thystean Banquets, and that the Agape meal consisted of a feast followed by indiscriminate intercourse in total darkness. First with the infanticide and the cannibalism:

And now I should wish to meet him who says or believes that we are initiated by the slaughter and blood of an infant. Think you that it can be possible for so tender, so little a body to receive those fatal wounds; for any one to shed, pour forth, and drain that new blood of a youngling, and of a man scarcely come into existence? No one can believe this, except one who can dare to do it. And I see that you at one time expose your begotten children to wild beasts and to birds; at another, that you crush them when strangled with a miserable kind of death. There are some women who, by drinking medical preparations, extinguish the source of the future man in their very bowels, and thus commit a parricide before they bring forth.

And these things assuredly come down from the teaching of your gods. For Saturn did not expose his children, but devoured them. With reason were infants sacrificed to him by parents in some parts of Africa, caresses and kisses repressing their crying, that a weeping victim might not be sacrificed. Moreover, among the Tauri of Pontus, and to the Egyptian Busiris, it was a sacred rite to immolate their guests, and for the Galli to slaughter to Mercury human, or rather inhuman, sacrifices. The Roman sacrificers buried living a Greek man and a Greek woman, a Gallic man and a Gallic woman; and to this day, Jupiter Latiaris is worshipped by them with murder; and, what is worthy of the son of Saturn, he is gorged with the blood of an evil and criminal man. I believe that he himself taught Catiline to conspire under a compact of blood, and Bellona to steep her sacred rites with a draught of human gore, and taught men to heal epilepsy with the blood of a man, that is, with a worse disease. They also are not unlike to him who devour the wild beasts from the arena, besmeared and stained with blood, or fattened with the limbs or the entrails of men. To us it is not lawful either to see or to hear of homicide; and so much do we shrink from human blood, that we do not use the blood even of eatable animals in our food.

Minucius Felix, Octavian 30 1

The protagonist states that it is the non-Christians who subject their younglings to cruel and atrocious deaths; moreover, it is the bloodthirsty gods of the non-Christians who gave them the ideas who do such things. But for the Christians, states Octavius, it is not even lawful for them to hear of homicide and they are so squeamish about human blood, that they do not even consume the blood of animals that are fit to consume as food. The refutation doesn't say the Christians shrink back from all human blood except the blood of Christ, but rather they shrink back from all human blood, period, to the point of abstaining from the blood of edible animals (edulium percorum, "edible livestock").

Finally Octavius addresses the charge of indiscriminate intercourse that is metaphorically upgraded to incest by the Christians' calling each other Brother and Sister:

And of the incestuous banqueting, the plotting of demons has falsely devised an enormous fable against us, to stain the glory of our modesty, by the loathing excited by an outrageous infamy, that before inquiring into the truth it might turn men away from us by the terror of an abominable charge. It was thus your own Fronto acted in this respect: he did not produce testimony, as one who alleged a charge, but he scattered reproaches as a rhetorician. For these things have rather originated from your own nations. Among the Persians, a promiscuous association between sons and mothers is allowed. Marriages with sisters are legitimate among the Egyptians and in Athens. Your records and your tragedies, which you both read and hear with pleasure, glory in incests: thus also you worship incestuous gods, who have intercourse with mothers, with daughters, with sisters. With reason, therefore, is incest frequently detected among you, and is continually permitted. Miserable men, you may even, without knowing it, rush into what is unlawful: since you scatter your lusts promiscuously, since you everywhere beget children, since you frequently expose even those who are born at home to the mercy of others, it is inevitable that you must come back to your own children, and stray to your own offspring. Thus you continue the story of incest, even although you have no consciousness of your crime.

But we maintain our modesty not in appearance, but in our heart we gladly abide by the bond of a single marriage; in the desire of procreating, we know either one wife, or none at all. We practise sharing in banquets, which are not only modest, but also sober: for we do not indulge in entertainments nor prolong our feasts with wine; but we temper our joyousness with gravity, with chaste discourse, and with body even more chaste (various of us unviolated) enjoy rather than make a boast of a perpetual virginity of a body. So far, in fact, are they from indulging in incestuous desire, that with some even the (idea of a) modest intercourse of the sexes causes a blush.

Neither do we at once stand on the level of the lowest of the people, if we refuse your honours and purple robes; and we are not fastidious, if we all have a discernment of one good, but are assembled together with the same quietness with which we live as individuals; and we are not garrulous in corners, although you either blush or are afraid to hear us in public.

And that day by day the number of us is increased, is not a ground for a charge of error, but is a testimony which claims praise; for, in a fair mode of life, our actual number both continues and abides undiminished, and strangers increase it. Thus, in short, we do not distinguish our people by some small bodily mark, as you suppose, but easily enough by the sign of innocency and modesty. Thus we love one another, to your regret, with a mutual love, because we do not know how to hate. Thus we call one another, to your envy, brethren: as being men born of one God and Parent, and companions in faith, and as fellow-heirs in hope. You, however, do not recognise one another, and you are cruel in your mutual hatreds; nor do you acknowledge one another as brethren, unless indeed for the purpose of fratricide.

Minucius Felix, Octavian 31 1

And Minucius Felix's protagonist argues along the same line of reasoning: not only do the Christians not engage in 'incestuous' intercourse, but they even refrain all but marital intercourse, with only one wife, for procreative purposes only. Even the mere idea of ordinary intercourse causes some among them to blush, he says. Yet on the other hand the non-Christians glory in incest in their plays, their stories, and the religious myths of their gods. And the non-Christians practice incest unawares, too, because they expose their children to the mercy of others and there fore it is inevitable that they should commit incest with their own when they visit a brothel!

So we have some conclusions about Minucius Felix's understanding of the Roman crux from the charges that Caecilius makes and Octavius refutes, based on its nesting in other indecent and atrocious charges and countercharges:

Caecilius' charges:

1. Christians by calling each other Brother and Sister upgrade normal intercourse to incest.
2. Christians worship the head of an ass (donkey).
3. Christians worship the virilia of their pontiff and priest; i.e., engage in cock-worship.
4. Christians worship an executed criminal and his crux.
5. Christians sacrifice a newborn infant and eat it in a Thystean Banquet.
6. Christians have a wild, indiscriminate orgy at the end of their Agape Meal.

Octavius' countercharges:

1. Non-Christians worship animal-human hybrids as gods (ex.: Pan)
2. Non-Christian men offer themselves for sale, they lick other men's middles, and perform oral sex on them. 
3. Non-Christians worship their monarchs.
4. Non-Christian have their own worship of the cross in the imperial religions. They even worship the simulacrum of a crucified man in the form of a tropaeum.
5. Non-Christians subject infants, toddlers, and even fetuses to cruel deaths.
6. Non-Christians celebrate incest in the myths of their gods and even unknowingly commit incest with their own that they had set out for exposure years before.

Now with the juxtaposition of the charge, denial and countercharge of the worship of a cross, or more accurately, crux (some kind of execution pole), in between those of cock-worship / fellatio and killing of infants and fetuses, it appears that at the time Octavius was written Roman crucifixion was at widely understood as both an obscenity linked with or resembling a same-sex sexual act and an atrocity. Such an understanding also appears to be held by Minucius Felix, with his wholesale denial that Christians worshipped the Cross that according to the gospel story, Jesus was crucified on. Such an understanding makes more sense if Roman crucifixion not only consisted of a limb suspension from a crossarmed pole, but also a rectal penetration on a sharpened stake that rose upward and projected outward so that it kept the person from falling off, even when he pushed upwards from his heels to relieve straining of the shouders, and impaled him deeply when he slumped down from his wrists when his leg muscles cramped and failed.

Like with this poor bugger. Only he was in an arena, with his sedile a more elaborate construction resembling Priapus' uncircumcised penis with an anal thorn on top, midway out from the main pole.

Notes:

1. New Advent.org, Minucius Felix, Octavius. Latin text at The Latin Library: note the English chapter titles are not present in the Latin.

2. Then again, Alexamenos could have been a devotee of Typhon-Seth: see the 1906 Jewish Encyclopaedia, "Ass-Worship."

3. Lit: "And he who would speak of their ceremonies [by reference to] a man punished for an outrageous deed with the height of punishment, and the lethal timbers of the torture-stake, attribute altars congruent to utterly lost and wicked people  so that they may worship the very thing which they deserve." 

4. Haec et huiusmodi propudia nobis non licet nec audire, etiam pluribus turpe defendere est: ea enim de castis fingitis et pudicis, quae fieri non crederemus, nisi de vobis probaretis. (These, and infamous deeds of this sort for us it is not permissible, not even to hear, likewise it is shameful [polluted] with any more   

to defend [ourselves]: namely you guys make up such things with regard to chaste and modest people, which to be done [by such] I cannot believe to be true, except concerning your own you demonstrate [to be true].)

5. It is abundamtly clear from the phrase Tropaea vestra victricia non tantum simplicis crucis faciem, verum et adfixi hominis imitantur (Your tropaea [trophies] not only have the shape of a crux simplex [simple cross], but also is made to resemble the actuality of a man attached to it.) that Minucius Felix's understanding of the crux simplex was expansive enough to include those frames now covered by Justus Lipsius' terms crux commissa (T cross or St Anthony's cross) and crux immissa. (Latin cross).

Crucifixion the Bodily Support - The Acuta Crux in Patristic Writings (16)

Athanasius of Alexandria.

(Part 7p 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     Part 7f     Part 7g    Part 7h
Part 7i      Part 7j     Part 7k      Part 7l

Part 7m    Part 7n    Part 7o

Athanasius.

Athanasis (296 or 298 to 373 CE) was an Orthodox-Catholic theologian of Alexandria who made a name for himself and was drafted into a leading role at the Council of Nicaea, to address the teachings of the Arian branch of Christianity. Although he was a prolific writer, he appareantly did not write all that much about the Roman penalty and their execution gear and most of what he wrote is impossible: I found that it is just recitation or paraphrasing of what is found in the NT or worse, stuffing it with theology and even making references to "the Holy Cross" as an instrument of the Deity's power and of the healing of the planet.  I suppose by this time, if Athanasius had ever known about the infamous crux, he had probably forgotten about it, and recognised it only as akin to a tropaeum. But I did find some small bits in his On the Incarnation of the Word. 

Athanasius a few 'prophecies' in this work, five of which I will discuss here.

They say to them, "A man in stripes, and knowing how to bear weakness, for his face is turned away, he was dishonoured and held in no account. He bears our sins, and is in pain on our account; and we reckoned him to be in labour, and in stripes, and in ill-usage; but he was wounded for our sins, and made weak for our wickedness. the chastisement of our peace was upon him, and by his stripes we are healed.

On the Incarnation of the Word 34.2 (New Advent) 1, 2

This first one is from Isaiah 53.3-5, although it appears to be a paraphrase. But where it says "to be in labour" does not imply anything remotely resembling childbirth! The Greek for "in labour" is πόνῳ: "in hard work, toil, bodily exertion, exercise." The rest of the translation is accurate, although I will say that "made weak" is μεμαλάκισται, "softened, weakened, made effeminate," which last would be true for the writer and the reader of the day only if they still remembered that an acuta crux was typically used in Roman suspensions, and was still assumed to be applied to the suspension of Jesus. This of course, cannot be proven, and besides, even for the earliest Christians, it could still mean something else: tenderized, that is, "softened up" and weakened by a beating or scourging, as I discussed in the writings of Pseudo-Barnabas, here.

1 But, perhaps, having heard the prophecy of His death, you ask to learn also what is set forth concerning the Cross. For not even this is passed over: it is displayed by the holy men with great plainness. 2. For first Moses predicts it, and that with a loud voice, when he says: “You shall see your Life hanging before your eyes, and shall not believe.” 3. And next, the prophets after him witness of this, saying: “But (Jeremiah 11:19) I as an innocent lamb brought to be slain, knew it not; they counselled an evil counsel against me, saying, Hither and let us cast a tree upon his bread, and efface him from the land of the living.” 4. And again: “They pierced my hands and my feet, they numbered all my bones, they parted my garments among them, and for my vesture they cast lots.” 5. Now a death raised aloft and that takes place on a tree, could be none other than the Cross: and again, in no other death are the hands and feet pierced, save on the Cross only.

On the Incarnation of the Word 33:1-5. (New Advent) 3, 4

Well let me pick this apart: Moses' 'prophecy' in 35:2 is in Deuteronomy 28:66, and it has nothing to do with the suspension of Jesus the Nazarene except in the most general sense.  The statement in Deuteronomy actually reads:

And thy life shall hang in doubt before thee; and thou shalt fear night and day, and shalt have no assurance of thy life.

Devarim (Deuteronomy) 28:66, 1917 JPS Edition

Your life will hang in suspense. Day and night, you will be so terrified that you will not believe that you are alive.

Devarim (Deuteronomy) 28:66 Kaplan Edition

David W. Chapman discusses this verse a bit, and cites an anecdote in Rabbinic Law that connects the Mosaic statement with the Roman penalty:

"Another explanation is this: 'Your life will hang in doubt before you' -- this applies to one who is placed in the prison of Caesarea. 'And you will fear night and day' -- this applies to one who is brought forth for trial. 'And you will have no assurance of your life' -- this applies to one who is brought out to be crucified."

Proem I in Esther Rabbah 5 

Well what is translated as "to be crucified" is the Aramaic להצלב which could just as easily be translated as "to be hanged" or "to be impaled." 6 Or both, if it's the typical Roman penalty on a typical Roman execution pole. And of course, Athanasius mangles it, equating "your life" with the Christian God Man, and said Moses predicted the Jews would not believe on Him.

The next 'prophecy' is picked out-of-context from Jeremiah 11:19: "Come, let us cast a tree upon his bread, and efface him from the land of the living." That's in the Catholic English, but the Greek reads: Δευτε, καὶ ἐμβάλωμεν ξύλον εἰς τόν ἄρτον αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐκτρίψωμεν αὐτὸν ἀπὸ γῆς ζώντων καὶ τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ οὐ μὴ μνησθῇ ἔτι. It can also mean: "Come, and let us cast wood into his bread, and rub him out [or wear him out by constant rubbing] from the land of the living."

The third 'prophecy' is from the Psalm 22:17-19: "They pierced my hands and my feet, they numbered all my bones, they parted my garments among them, and for my vesture they cast lots.” It is still known to all Christians. Of course, the Jewish people do not view this as any prophecy at all.

And Athanasius says both are fulfilled by the death on the "cross" (σταυρός (pole)), because a death that is lifted up and takes place on wood (Θάνατος δὲ μετέωρος, καὶ ἐν ξύλῳ γινόμενος) and because the death is one where the hands and feet are dug through (θανάτῳ διορύσσονται χεῖρες καὶ πόδες). Nota bene that with ἐν ξύλῳ the preposition ἐν is paired with ξύλῳ, which is the dative of ξυλον (wood). That would make the wood the agent of cause or the instrument of death, i.e., the death takes place with, by means of, the wood. 7 With the confusion of the Canonical Gospels whether Jesus carried his own cross, pole, or even crossbeam or not, and some ancient sources stating the criminals had to pick up their own pole, it actually makes more sense if the instrument of his execution was equipped with a penetrating wooden member that was known as an acuta crux. Without one, of course, the backup strategy is to assume that John was correct in that Jesus carried the cross, or harmonize the Canonical Gospels as is traditionally done.

Utility Poles. (Source: Wikipedia.)

The fifth 'prophecy' concerns the stretching out of the arms on the crossarm of the execution pole (which was just like the crossarm of a utility pole):

1b For of whom do the prophets say: “I was made manifest to them that sought me not, I was found of them that asked not for me: I said Behold, here am I, to the nation that had not called upon my name; I stretched out my hands to a disobedient and gainsaying people.” 2. Who, then, one might say to the Jews, is he that was made manifest? For if it is the prophet, let them say when he was hid, afterward to appear again. And what manner of prophet is this, that was not only made manifest from obscurity, but also stretched out his hands on the Cross? None surely of the righteous, save the Word of God only, Who, incorporeal by nature, appeared for our sakes in the body and suffered for all.

On the Incarnation of the Word, 38:1b-2 (New Adv't) 8, 9 

This prediction is from Isaiah 65:1 and 2. It follows in train on Isaiah 64, which recounts a lament of the disasters befalling Israel and Judah, and a prayer that the LORD relent and remember his people. In that context, The beginning of Isaiah 65 depicts the LORD in response airing grievances to Isaiah against the people of Israel and Judah and saying he was not done judging the people yet, but Christians took it as a prophecy of the Crucifixion. Make of it what you will.

Anyway, the stretching out of hands part: "I stretched out my hands" in 38:1b is, in the Greek, ἐξεπέτασα τὰς χεῖράς μου (I have spread out my hands). So we have the image of a person spreading his hands out to his sides in a gesture of frustration with the one he's speaking to. Now the supposed fulfillment, is in the "prophet" who was also the "Word of God," who "stretched out his hands on the Cross:" for which the Greek is τὰς χεῖρας ἐκπετάσας ἐπὶ σταυροῦ (the hands being spread out upon a pole). The presumption, of course, is that the pole was like a modern utility pole, because the spreading out is like that of a pair of wings or a net. Of course, by the time of this writing, Athanasius was probably thinking of a CROSS: that is, a TROPAEUM. Unconvinced? Then you should come to Rome....

Next: Wrap-up

Notes:

1. On the Incarnation 34: 2 (Documenta Catholica Omnia, English Text)

There is this passage, for instance: "A man that is afflicted and knows how to bear weakness, for His face is turned away. He was dishonored and not considered, He bears our sins and suffers for our sakes. And we for our part thought Him distressed and afflicted and ill-used; but it was for our sins that He was wounded and for our lawlessness that He was made weak. Chastisement for our peace was upon Him, and by His bruising we are healed."

2. De incarnation verbi 34:2 (Documenta Catholica Omnia, Greek Text)

[34.2] Φασὶ τοίνυν·  «Ἄνθρωπος ἐν πληγῇ ὤν, καὶ εἰδὼς φέρειν μαλακίαν, ὅτι ἀπέστραπται τὸ πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ· ἠτιμά σθη καὶ οὐκ ἐλογίσθη. Αὐτὸς τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἡμῶν φέρει, καὶ περὶ ἡμῶν ὀδυνᾶται· καὶ ἡμεῖς ἐλογισάμεθα αὐτὸν εἶναι ἐν πόνῳ, καὶ ἐν πληγῇ, καὶ ἐν κακώσει. Αὐτὸς δὲ ἐτραυματίσθη διὰ τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἡμῶν, καὶ μεμαλάκισται διὰ τὰς ἀνομίας ἡμῶν· παιδεία εἰρήνης ἡμῶν ἐπ' αὐτόν, τῷ μώλωπι αὐτοῦ ἡμεῖς ἰάθημεν.». 

3. On the Incarnation 35: 1-5 (Documenta Catholica Omnia, English Text)

You have heard the prophecy of His death, and now, perhaps, you want to know what indications there are about the cross. Even this is not passed over in silence: on the contrary, the sacred writers proclaim it with the utmost plainness. Moses foretells it first, and that right loudly, when he says, "You shall see your Life hanging before your eyes, and shall not believe." After him the prophets also give their witness, saying, "But I as an innocent lamb brought to be offered was yet ignorant of it. They plotted evil against Me, saying, 'Come, let us cast wood into His bread, and wipe Him out from the land of the living." And, again, "They pierced My hands and My feet, they counted all My bones, they divided My garments for themselves and cast lots for My clothing." Now a death lifted up and that takes place on wood can be none other than the death of the cross; moreover, it is only in that death that the hands and feet are pierced.

4. De incarnation verbi 35:1-5 (Documenta Catholica Omnia, Greek Text)

[35.1] Ἀλλ' ἴσως περὶ μὲν τῆς τοῦ θανάτου προφητείας ἀκούσας, ζητεῖς καὶ τὰ περὶ τοῦ σταυροῦ σημαινόμενα μαθεῖν. Οὐδὲ γὰρ οὐδὲ τοῦτο σεσιώπηται· δεδήλωται δὲ καὶ λίαν τηλαυγῶς ἀπὸ τῶν ἁγίων. [35.2] Μωϋσῆς γὰρ πρῶτος μεγάλῃ τῇ φωνῇ προαπαγγέλλει λέγων· «Ὄψεσθε τὴν ζωὴν ὑμῶν κρεμαμένην ἀπέναντι τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν ὑμῶν, καὶ οὐ μὴ πιστεύσητε.». [35.3] Καὶ οἱ μετ' αὐτὸν δὲ προφῆται πάλιν περὶ τούτου μαρτυροῦσι λέγοντες· «Ἐγὼ δὲ ὡς ἀρνίον ἄκακον ἀγόμενον τοῦ θύεσθαι, οὐκ ἔγνων· ἐπ' ἐμὲ ἐλογίσαντο πονηρὸν λέγοντες· δεῦτε, καὶ ἐμβάλωμεν ξύλον εἰς τὸν ἄρτον αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἐκτρίψωμεν αὐτὸν ἀπὸ γῆς ζώντων.». [35.4] Καὶ πάλιν· «Ὤρυξαν χεῖράς μου καὶ πόδας μου· ἐξηρίθμησαν πάντα τὰ ὀστᾶ μου, διεμερίσαντο τὰ ἱμάτιά μου ἑαυτοῖς, καὶ ἐπὶ τὸν ἱματισμόν μου ἔβαλον κλῆρον.». [35.5] Θάνατος δὲ μετέωρος, καὶ ἐν ξύλῳ γινόμενος, οὐκ ἄλλος ἂν εἴη, εἰ μὴ ὁ σταυρός· καὶ ἐν οὐδενὶ πάλιν θανάτῳ διορύσσονται χεῖρες καὶ πόδες, εἰ μὴ ἐν μόνῳ τῷ σταυρῷ.

5. As cited in David W. Chapman, Ancient Jewish and Christian Perceptions of Crucifixion, Grand Rapids, MI, Baker Academic (2008) p. 89. (Link.)

6. Marcus Jastrow, Dictionary of the Targumin, Talmud and Midrashic Literature, New York, G. P. Putnam's Sons, (1926) p. 1282, entry  צלב : "to hang, impale." (Link.)

7. Perseus Greek Word Study Tool, ἐν and ξύλῳ. The Autenrieth, Slater, Middle Liddell and LSJ Lexica (accessible by the link menu in the top listing box for ἐν) all verify that ἐν + dative can mean "of the instrument, means or manner" with the dative noun as the instrument, means or manner by which something is brought about. 

8. On the Incarnation 38: 1b-2 (Documenta Catholica Omnia, English Text)

Of whom, for instance, do the prophets say "I was made manifest to those who did not seek Me, I was found by those who had not asked for Me? I said, 'See, here am I,' to the nation that had not called upon My Name. I stretched out My hands to a disobedient and gainsaying people." Who is this person that was made manifest, one might ask the Jews? If the prophet is speaking of himself, then they must tell us how he was first hidden, in order to be manifested afterwards. And, again, what kind of man is this prophet, who was not only revealed after being hidden, but also stretched out his hands upon the cross? Those things happened to none of those righteous men: they happened only to the Word of God Who, being by nature without body, on our account appeared in a body and suffered for us all.

9. De incarnation verbi 38:1b-2 (Documenta Catholica Omnia, Greek Text)

[38:1] ....Περὶ τίνος γὰρ λέγουσιν οἱ προφῆται· «Ἐμφανὴς ἐγενόμην τοῖς ἐμὲ μὴ ζητοῦσιν, εὑρέθην τοῖς ἐμὲ μὴ ἐπερωτῶσιν· εἶπα ἰδού εἰμι τῷ ἔθνει οἳ οὐκ ἐκάλεσάν μου τὸ ὄνομα· ἐξεπέτασα τὰς χεῖράς μου πρὸς λαὸν ἀπειθοῦντα καὶ ἀντιλέγοντα;» [38.2] Τίς οὖν ἐστιν ὁ ἐμφανὴς γενόμενος; Εἴποι τις πρὸς Ἰουδαίους· εἰ μὲν γὰρ ὁ προφήτης ἐστί, λεγέτωσαν πότε ἐκρύπτετο, ἵνα καὶ ὕστερον φανῇ· Ποῖος δὲ οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ προφήτης ὁ καὶ ἐμφανὴς ἐξ ἀφανῶν γενόμενος, καὶ τὰς χεῖρας ἐκπετάσας ἐπὶ σταυροῦ; Τῶν μὲν οὖν δικαίων οὐδείς, μόνος δὲ ὁ τοῦ Θεοῦ Λόγος, ὁ ἀσώματος ὢν τὴν φύσιν καὶ δι' ἡμᾶς σώματι φανεὶς καὶ ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν παθών.