Freethought & Rationalism Archive

PhilosopherJay · 05-10-2011, 08:36 AM

The only time that the word nail (ἧλος) is used is in John

Quote:

20.25 So the other disciples told him, "We have seen the Lord." But he said to them, "Unless I see in his hands the print of the nails, and place my finger in the mark of the nails, and place my hand in his side, I will not believe."

This is the only evidence that crucified people in Rome were nailed to a cross. The logical thing would be to tie people to a cross with a rope. This would make it easy to untie the person, either because he had died or been pardoned. Also bleeding from the nail would quicken death, while the point of crucifixion was for the person to die slowly.

I suggest that there has been a mistranslation here. Instead of the word ἧλος, I suggest the word ἁλός (grain of sand) was originally here.

Basically it would mean that the translation should be

Quote:

Unless I see the grains of salt in his hands and touch the grains of salt and place my hand in his side, I will not believe.

Thomas is trying to say that unless he touches his hand to feel the smallest particle (a grain of salt) he won't believe. "Place my hand in his side" would just mean something like giving him a bearhug or perhaps just touching his side the way you would a close friend.

Probably, when John (or an editor) combined this floating story text with the text describing the piercing of Jesus' side, he decided to change the term "grain of salt" to "nail" to try and link the two disparate passages together.

The change of ἁλός to ἧλος led to the perverse interpretation of this passage that we currently have and the mistaken idea that the Romans drove nails through the hands of the slaves they crucified.

According to Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon:

ἅλς (A), ἁλός [α^], ὁ: dat. pl. ἅλασιν (v. infr.):—
A. salt, “πάσσε δ᾽ ἁλὸς θείοιο” Il.9.214, cf. Od.17.455; ἁλὸς μέταλλον a salt-mine, Hdt.4.185; ἁλὸς χόνδροι lumps of rock-salt, ib.181 : sg. also Ar.Ach.835, Philyll.28, Axionic.8: more freq. in pl., Od.11.123, Hdt.4.53, al., etc.:—prov. phrases: “οὐ σύ γ᾽ ἂν . . σῷ ἐπιστάτη οὐδ᾽ ἅλα δοίης” Od.17.455; “φῄς μοι πάντα δόμεν: τάχα δ᾽ . . οὐδ᾽ ἅλα δοίης” Theoc.27.61; ἅλας συναναλῶσαι, i.e. to be bound by ties of hospitality, Arist.EN1156b27; τῶν ἁλῶν συγκατεδηδοκέναι μέδιμνον to have eaten a bushel of salt together, i.e. to be old friends, Com.Adesp.176; οἱ περὶ ἅλα καὶ κύαμον, of friends, Plu.2.684e

Thus proverbs involving salt is often associated with old friendships. The term might have been referencing this concept also.

I would also add this corollary thought. In the original context, Thomas must have been saying the opposite of what he now says. He must have been saying that he would not believe that Jesus was dead unless he touched his hand and side. Remember, Thomas and none of the apostles had seen Jesus dead. Therefore, in the earlier version of the tale, Thomas would have doubted that Jesus was dead.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

aeebee50 · 05-10-2011, 09:29 AM

It is all Greek to me.

stephan huller · 05-10-2011, 09:43 AM

Interesting as always Jay.

A quick observation. Tertullian mentions somewhere (from memory) that the newly baptized were rolled in salt in the manner of newborn babies in antiquity. Salt in its pure form appears to be sort of like a crystal. I wonder whether someone covered from head to toe (as a preserving agent - even for babies) was imagined to resemble Adam in his pure adamantine form (cf Ezekiel). Maybe that's why Origen was called Adamantius. Could it be that there was a variant form of baptism involving salt which protected one from the 'fires' (both in this world and the next)? I don't know. Just a quick thought.

The only question is why does Christ have salt in his hands (if your theory holds up). Is it a symbol that salt is a preserving agent in the hereafter? There are a couple of famous sayings in the gospel to this effect. See also the application of these sayings in the Letter to Theodore.

In any event, it never hurts to consider other possibilities.

seyorni · 05-10-2011, 09:43 AM

But what about the hundreds of other writers who described Roman crucifiction?

Toto · 05-10-2011, 10:11 AM

Josephus on crucifixion nails

Quote:

Concerning Gessius Florus, who was procurator shortly before the First Revolt (66-73 CE), he states that Florus ‘nailed’ (προσηλωσαι) men of the equestrian order to their crosses. In the account of the First Jewish Revolt, he utilizes again the Greek verb ‘to nail’: “So the soldiers out of the wrath and hatred they bore the Jews, nailed (προσηλουν) those they caught, one after one way, and another after another, to the crosses, by way of jest.” It has remained unnoticed that the only time that Josephus employs the verb ‘to nail’ (προσηλοω) is during the events leading up to the revolt and those during the destruction of Jerusalem. Josephus’ additional description may be due to the fact that nails were not commonly used during crucifixion, otherwise his use of the term would be redundant. Perhaps, in Judea the Romans did not crucify with nails, binding their victims to the cross with ropes. It was not until the Jewish Revolt that the Romans, infuriated by any attempt to question their supreme authority, decided to augment the stifling humiliation of crucifixion by violently nailing Jews to the cross, or as Josephus notes, “by way of jest”.

In traditional Christian terms, our view of the crucifixion has been obscured by almost 2,000 years of iconography. The Synoptic gospels, in contradistinction, lack any details of nails (ηλοι, pronounced heloi) during Jesus’ crucifixion or that of the thiefs that were executed alonside him. The one time that nails are mentioned is during the Doubting Thomas pericope (Jn 20:24-28), where Thomas must see Jesus’ wounds in order to believe. Outside of this isolated event, the entirety of the gospels lack the verb ‘to nail’ or the noun ‘nail(s)’ in any sense. ...

There is more at an essay, "See My Hands and [My] Feet: Fresh Light on a Johannine Midrash" by Jeffrey Paul Garcia in the SBL publication John, Jesus, and history, Volume 2 (or via: amazon.co.uk), previewed on google books.

PhilosopherJay · 05-10-2011, 11:20 AM

Hi Stephan,

Good suggestions and leads.
I was thinking that quality that Thomas was going for would be the smallness of a grain of salt You would have to be very close to a person to see or feel a grain of salt, so in some respect Thomas is saying that only if he gets that close will he believe in the resurrection/death of Jesus.

Wikipedia has some interesting salt in the bible references:

Quote:

Salt was widely and variably used as a symbol and sacred sign in ancient Palestine. Numbers 18:19 and 2 Chronicles 13:5 illustrate salt as a covenant of friendship. In cultures throughout the region, the eating of salt is a sign of friendship.

If Thomas didn't believe Jesus was dead, this would be because of his friendship with Jesus. the idea of salt might be reinforcing that friendship.

The only other relevant thing I could find on a quick search was this article on Hebrew funeral customs, which states, "When a Hebrew died the deceased’s body was laid out – either on bare ground, or on sand or salt."

Warmly,

Jay

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Interesting as always Jay.

A quick observation. Tertullian mentions somewhere (from memory) that the newly baptized were rolled in salt in the manner of newborn babies in antiquity. Salt in its pure form appears to be sort of like a crystal. I wonder whether someone covered from head to toe (as a preserving agent - even for babies) was imagined to resemble Adam in his pure adamantine form (cf Ezekiel). Maybe that's why Origen was called Adamantius. Could it be that there was a variant form of baptism involving salt which protected one from the 'fires' (both in this world and the next)? I don't know. Just a quick thought.

The only question is why does Christ have salt in his hands (if your theory holds up). Is it a symbol that salt is a preserving agent in the hereafter? There are a couple of famous sayings in the gospel to this effect. See also the application of these sayings in the Letter to Theodore.

In any event, it never hurts to consider other possibilities.

PhilosopherJay · 05-10-2011, 11:25 AM

Hi Toto,

Thanks for this.

I'm wondering if Josephus could be using the term "nailed" metaphorically to mean just a tight bringing together or tight fitting, as we often you the term, in such expressions as "I nailed that quiz" or "I nailed that interview."

Warmly,

Jay

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Josephus on crucifixion nails

Quote:

Concerning Gessius Florus, who was procurator shortly before the First Revolt (66-73 CE), he states that Florus ‘nailed’ (προσηλωσαι) men of the equestrian order to their crosses. In the account of the First Jewish Revolt, he utilizes again the Greek verb ‘to nail’: “So the soldiers out of the wrath and hatred they bore the Jews, nailed (προσηλουν) those they caught, one after one way, and another after another, to the crosses, by way of jest.” It has remained unnoticed that the only time that Josephus employs the verb ‘to nail’ (προσηλοω) is during the events leading up to the revolt and those during the destruction of Jerusalem. Josephus’ additional description may be due to the fact that nails were not commonly used during crucifixion, otherwise his use of the term would be redundant. Perhaps, in Judea the Romans did not crucify with nails, binding their victims to the cross with ropes. It was not until the Jewish Revolt that the Romans, infuriated by any attempt to question their supreme authority, decided to augment the stifling humiliation of crucifixion by violently nailing Jews to the cross, or as Josephus notes, “by way of jest”.

In traditional Christian terms, our view of the crucifixion has been obscured by almost 2,000 years of iconography. The Synoptic gospels, in contradistinction, lack any details of nails (ηλοι, pronounced heloi) during Jesus’ crucifixion or that of the thiefs that were executed alonside him. The one time that nails are mentioned is during the Doubting Thomas pericope (Jn 20:24-28), where Thomas must see Jesus’ wounds in order to believe. Outside of this isolated event, the entirety of the gospels lack the verb ‘to nail’ or the noun ‘nail(s)’ in any sense. ...

There is more at an essay, "See My Hands and [My] Feet: Fresh Light on a Johannine Midrash" by Jeffrey Paul Garcia in the SBL publication John, Jesus, and history, Volume 2 (or via: amazon.co.uk), previewed on google books.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-10-2011, 09:29 AM	#2
aeebee50 Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Texas Posts: 5,810	It is all Greek to me.

05-10-2011, 09:43 AM	#3
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Interesting as always Jay. A quick observation. Tertullian mentions somewhere (from memory) that the newly baptized were rolled in salt in the manner of newborn babies in antiquity. Salt in its pure form appears to be sort of like a crystal. I wonder whether someone covered from head to toe (as a preserving agent - even for babies) was imagined to resemble Adam in his pure adamantine form (cf Ezekiel). Maybe that's why Origen was called Adamantius. Could it be that there was a variant form of baptism involving salt which protected one from the 'fires' (both in this world and the next)? I don't know. Just a quick thought. The only question is why does Christ have salt in his hands (if your theory holds up). Is it a symbol that salt is a preserving agent in the hereafter? There are a couple of famous sayings in the gospel to this effect. See also the application of these sayings in the Letter to Theodore. In any event, it never hurts to consider other possibilities.

05-10-2011, 09:43 AM	#4
seyorni Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Albuquerque. SW USA Posts: 3,176	But what about the hundreds of other writers who described Roman crucifiction?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.