stephan huller

I've been looking at your statistics double d. In less than two months you had 534 posts and averaged 20 posts per week without any knowledge of anything to do with biblical criticism. What are you up to? I find it to reconcile someone having so much to say without having anything to share

Duvduv

Considering. I am not a professional in the field, and considering that your demands are not a prerequisite for participation in the group, I guess I'm not doing badly coming at it from a different perspective.

But it sure looks like you have it in for me.

Toto

Let's not make this personal.

The problem, Duvduv, is that you don't participate. You pose half thought out questions, you don't do your own research or you don't report what you found. You don't seem to have a clear idea of what a discussion board is about, in terms of give and take.

Duvduv

I disagree, but again, I didn't know there were specific requirements for participation here and that it was a forum for open discussion rather than an academic group specifying certain criteria for participation.
Since I am not a professional but take an avid interest in what I participate in, I can't avoid reacting as anyone else to what others who are more experienced in this field are posting.

la70119

I happen to be new here, and I'm not a profesional in the field of biblical criticism, but I did plenty of research into crucifixion and have found epigraphs from the 1st Century CE that indicate it was a penetrative punishment that was shameful to the extreme.

Not to mention, I found ancient Greek and Latin writings that make crucifixion apparently synonymous with impalement. And I also found that the various verbiage used to describe crucifixion, when given the right context, was describing impalement.

worst were the writings of the early clerics Justin Martyr, Irenaeus of Lyons and Tertulian who described the cross as having five points. And Origen quotes Celsus as describing the cross as a "thorn."

Nevertheless, Stephen Huller is right about the cross being a T-shaped execution utility pole.

And yes, ξυλον could refer to the patibulum, the crossarm of this kind of utilty pole.

Vorkosigan

In John 19 there is a reference to legs being broken, which implies that they were indeed on a stake with a bar for the hands; had Jesus been impaled, leg-breaking wouldn't have been an issue, I think. This suggests that at the time John was written, probably after 150, the understanding was a crucifixion with suspended hands on a t-bar.

Vorkosigan

Duvduv

That certainly detracts from the metaphor of the Lamb of God since the Passover sacrifice was considered invalid if any of the bones were broken. That's aside from the confusion between the Passover sacrifice and the goat sacrifice on Yom Kippur required to forgive the sins of the generation. Justin's metaphor was more in line with the distinctions than GJohn.
And of course sacrifices were completely consumed by fire or eating and had no resurrection.The first Nicene Creed was at least able to avoid these complications.

Chili

I think the cross is an imaginary device that seems archetypal in the human mind where the crossroads are the human heart upon which the ego spire was built. It existed also for the Yellowhead Indians North West of Edmonton Alberta where the suffering servant died with a stone in his mouth that represented the last word he could not utter, similar to 'Abba Father' here or Wordsworth "timely uttering that gave his thoughts release" before beauty and truth arrived, . . . but suffering must come first, and interesting here is that they called this small stone "the choking lie" [of the imposter].

They had a 'sacred tree' in the shape of a cross on which a puritan preacher tried to immitate a crucifixion and tied himself on small ropes he had knotted to hold him in place, and when the rains came they shrunk to leave him with no escape and died there nonetheless. Was funny, but the allegory seems to fit reality where priestly arrogance could go no farther.

Edit to add that I got this from: "Tay John" by Howard O'Hagan who was quite familiar with those Indians then.

sotto voce

History, eh.

Toto

It's bad enough when you reply with one liners. But what is this supposed to mean? History is bunk, ala Henry Ford?