Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Littlejohn · 03-13-2012, 08:39 AM

Quote:

Remember, Josephus is a prophetic historian - so he is not confined to a historical accounting. History and pseudo-history; history and its interpretation; history as 'salvation history'. It's limiting Josephus to being only a historian that is limiting inquiry into early christian origins.
.

In the second century AD, a character, known as Hegesippus (definitely NOT his real name), was commissioned to compose an epitome of the works of Josephus (Jewish War + Jewish Antiquities ). He accomplished his task by synthesizing all in five volumes (*).

There was never anyone, among those who are interested in the history of Christianity, who has asked itself why it was made an epitome, when there should have been ALL the books of Josephus around? ...

_____________________________

(*) - there are many chances that the famous 'testimonium Flavianum' has been taken dall'epitome of Hegesippus.

Littledjohn

.

la70119 · 03-13-2012, 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by la70119

You mean bound to a stake or a post or a pole with or without a crossarm, scourged, and beheaded in 37. BC.

That's what it says in Josephus in the original Greek. Latin sources of other events indicate that the Greek stauros (pale, pole, post, stake, cross) on which people were bound to be scourged or otherwise tortured was a palus (pale, pole, post, stake).

Josephus does not mention anything about Antigonus being bound to a stake or cross or pole etc. That info is from Cassius Dio.

Cassius Dio's Roman History:

Quote:

http://www.brainfly.net/html/books/diocas49.htm

These people Antony entrusted to a certain Herod to govern; but Antigonus he bound to a cross and flogged,— a punishment no other king had suffered at the hands of the Romans,— and afterwards slew him.

CD RH 49.22.6, to be exact. Yes, my memory's getting faulty. So sue me.

Quote:

[6]λοιπῶν τὰ νομιζόμενα ποιῆσαι. ἐκείνους μὲν οὖν Ἡρώδῃ τινὶ ὁ Ἀντώνιος ἄρχειν ἐπέτρεψε, τὸν δ᾽ Ἀντίγονον ἐμαστίγωσε σταυρῷ προσδήσας, ὃ μηδεὶς βασιλεὺς ἄλλος ὑπὸ τῶν Ῥωμαίων ἐπεπόνθει, καὶ μετὰ τοῦτο καὶ ἀπέσφαξεν.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/...3A2008.01.0593

All the words at the link are linked therein to lexica listings at its site.

ἐμαστίγωσε σταυρῷ προσδήσας - [Anthony] whipped him when he was bound on a stauros of any shape. And the shape doesn't really matter. Except Romans usually used poles for this purpose. (Livy ab Urbe Conditia 26.13.15 & 28.29.11)

Livy aUC 26.13.15

Quote:

I shall not see Appius Claudius and Quintus Fulvius, emboldened by their insolent victory, nor shall I be dragged in chains through the city of Rome as a spectacle in a triumph, so that I may then breathe my last in the prison, or else, bound to a stake*, with my back mangled by rods, may submit my neck to the Roman axe.

* palus = pale, pole, stake

Livy aUC 28.29.11

Quote:

They were being dragged out into the centre stripped, and at the same time everything requisite for punishment was being brought out. Bound to a stake* they were scourged and beheaded, while the spectators were so paralysed by fear that not only was no fierce protest against the severity of the punishment heard, but not even a groan.

* palus

Livy lived at the same time Antigonus was executed, and wrote from about that time and later until his death in the early first century.

He said people were bound to posts, stakes, for scourging. Why should the Romans use crosses wen a simple stake was so much easier? :huh: And if they used a simple stake in Rome proper, why would they use a cross in J'lem? :huh:

Quote:

As for the discussion re stake or cross or pole, post etc - it's all been debated in this earlier thread - in which you participated...

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread....80#post7053280
The crucifixion of Jesus

And we all came to a conclusion that before he was historicized he was crucified on a chresimon. You know, a Chi-Rho. Then, when they literally historicized him, they changed the chresimon to a tropaeum.

But so long as, as Sheshbazzar says, one is Hell-bent upon the venerating of an image [hanged from a tropaeum], or insisting that Antigonus was bound to and flogged on a gibbet of the same shape, we will never stop having these controversies.

:banghead:

maryhelena · 03-13-2012, 10:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by la70119

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by la70119

You mean bound to a stake or a post or a pole with or without a crossarm, scourged, and beheaded in 37. BC.

That's what it says in Josephus in the original Greek. Latin sources of other events indicate that the Greek stauros (pale, pole, post, stake, cross) on which people were bound to be scourged or otherwise tortured was a palus (pale, pole, post, stake).

Josephus does not mention anything about Antigonus being bound to a stake or cross or pole etc. That info is from Cassius Dio.

Cassius Dio's Roman History:

Quote:

http://www.brainfly.net/html/books/diocas49.htm

These people Antony entrusted to a certain Herod to govern; but Antigonus he bound to a cross and flogged,— a punishment no other king had suffered at the hands of the Romans,— and afterwards slew him.

CD RH 49.22.6, to be exact. Yes, my memory's getting faulty. So sue me.

Quote:

[6]λοιπῶν τὰ νομιζόμενα ποιῆσαι. ἐκείνους μὲν οὖν Ἡρώδῃ τινὶ ὁ Ἀντώνιος ἄρχειν ἐπέτρεψε, τὸν δ᾽ Ἀντίγονον ἐμαστίγωσε σταυρῷ προσδήσας, ὃ μηδεὶς βασιλεὺς ἄλλος ὑπὸ τῶν Ῥωμαίων ἐπεπόνθει, καὶ μετὰ τοῦτο καὶ ἀπέσφαξεν.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/...3A2008.01.0593

All the words at the link are linked therein to lexica listings at its site.

ἐμαστίγωσε σταυρῷ προσδήσας - [Anthony] whipped him when he was bound on a stauros of any shape. And the shape doesn't really matter. Except Romans usually used poles for this purpose. (Livy ab Urbe Conditia 26.13.15 & 28.29.11)

Livy aUC 26.13.15

Quote:

I shall not see Appius Claudius and Quintus Fulvius, emboldened by their insolent victory, nor shall I be dragged in chains through the city of Rome as a spectacle in a triumph, so that I may then breathe my last in the prison, or else, bound to a stake*, with my back mangled by rods, may submit my neck to the Roman axe.

* palus = pale, pole, stake

Livy aUC 28.29.11

Quote:

They were being dragged out into the centre stripped, and at the same time everything requisite for punishment was being brought out. Bound to a stake* they were scourged and beheaded, while the spectators were so paralysed by fear that not only was no fierce protest against the severity of the punishment heard, but not even a groan.

* palus

Livy lived at the same time Antigonus was executed, and wrote from about that time and later until his death in the early first century.

He said people were bound to posts, stakes, for scourging. Why should the Romans use crosses wen a simple stake was so much easier? :huh: And if they used a simple stake in Rome proper, why would they use a cross in J'lem? :huh:

Quote:

As for the discussion re stake or cross or pole, post etc - it's all been debated in this earlier thread - in which you participated...

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread....80#post7053280
The crucifixion of Jesus

And we all came to a conclusion that before he was historicized he was crucified on a chresimon. You know, a Chi-Rho. Then, when they literally historicized him, they changed the chresimon to a tropaeum.

But so long as, as Sheshbazzar says, one is Hell-bent upon the venerating of an image [hanged from a tropaeum], or insisting that Antigonus was bound to and flogged on a gibbet of the same shape, we will never stop having these controversies.

:banghead:

Quite frankly I don't understand your point here...

According to Cassius Dio, Antigonus was bound to a piece of wood and flogged - and whatever the shape of that piece of wood - Antigonus was crucified.

Arguing over the shape of that piece of wood is of secondary interest - it is not the primary focus - which is suspension upon a piece of wood. And in the case of Antigonus, a living as opposed to a dead body being suspended upon a piece of wood, the victim was flogged.

As to the Greek word used by Cassius Dio - check out the footnotes on pages 10 and 70 of this book:

Ancient Jewish and Christian perceptions of crucifixion: David W. Chapman (or via: amazon.co.uk)

As to what was the shape of the piece of wood upon which the ahistorical gospel figure of JC was suspended upon - really? Whatever decision one comes to for that literary constructed gospel JC storyline - have fun ...:constern01:

la70119 · 03-14-2012, 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by la70119

CD RH 49.22.6, to be exact. Yes, my memory's getting faulty. So sue me.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/...3A2008.01.0593

All the words at the link are linked therein to lexica listings at its site.

ἐμαστίγωσε σταυρῷ προσδήσας - [Anthony] whipped him when he was bound on a stauros of any shape. And the shape doesn't really matter. Except Romans usually used poles for this purpose. (Livy ab Urbe Conditia 26.13.15 & 28.29.11)

Livy aUC 26.13.15

Livy aUC 28.29.11

Livy lived at the same time Antigonus was executed, and wrote from about that time and later until his death in the early first century.

He said people were bound to posts, stakes, for scourging. Why should the Romans use crosses wen a simple stake was so much easier? :huh: And if they used a simple stake in Rome proper, why would they use a cross in J'lem? :huh:

And we all came to a conclusion that before he was historicized he was crucified on a chresimon. You know, a Chi-Rho. Then, when they literally historicized him, they changed the chresimon to a tropaeum.

But so long as, as Sheshbazzar says, one is Hell-bent upon the venerating of an image [hanged from a tropaeum], or insisting that Antigonus was bound to and flogged on a gibbet of the same shape, we will never stop having these controversies.

:banghead:

Quite frankly I don't understand your point here...

According to Cassius Dio, Antigonus was bound to a piece of wood and flogged - and whatever the shape of that piece of wood - Antigonus was crucified.

The common definition is "nail to a cross." The scholars' definition is, "to execute a person by attaching him to and suspending him on a device made out of wood, and leaving him there to die." The ancient Romans' definition, as far as I can tell from ancient writings and epigraphy, is "to nail to and impale on a priapean crux, or just impale on a stake. Although foreigners have different ideas."

Quote:

Arguing over the shape of that piece of wood is of secondary interest - it is not the primary focus - which is suspension upon a piece of wood. And in the case of Antigonus, a living as opposed to a dead body being suspended upon a piece of wood, the victim was flogged.

How do you know his feet or at least his toes weren't on the ground?

Quote:

As to the Greek word used by Cassius Dio - check out the footnotes on pages 10 and 70 of this book:

Ancient Jewish and Christian perceptions of crucifixion: David W. Chapman (or via: amazon.co.uk)

I've already done that, some time ago, after the discussion in xylon versus stauros thread. Chapman kind of ruins his whole scholarship when he says that for crucifixion, he says he means that in the common (and limited) English sense: nail to a cross, only.

Quote:

As to what was the shape of the piece of wood upon which the ahistorical gospel figure of JC was suspended upon - really? Whatever decision one comes to for that literary constructed gospel JC storyline - have fun ...:constern01:

The traditional shape was from Church tradition. Before Constantine, the historicist Church Fathers were saying that the New Testament Jesus was crucified in the manner that the Roman government did, on a standard Roman crux. Remove its "phallus", and you have a big wooden T or the frame of a tropeum (cross).

maryhelena · 03-14-2012, 10:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by la70119

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by la70119

CD RH 49.22.6, to be exact. Yes, my memory's getting faulty. So sue me.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/...3A2008.01.0593

All the words at the link are linked therein to lexica listings at its site.

ἐμαστίγωσε σταυρῷ προσδήσας - [Anthony] whipped him when he was bound on a stauros of any shape. And the shape doesn't really matter. Except Romans usually used poles for this purpose. (Livy ab Urbe Conditia 26.13.15 & 28.29.11)

Livy aUC 26.13.15

Livy aUC 28.29.11

Livy lived at the same time Antigonus was executed, and wrote from about that time and later until his death in the early first century.

He said people were bound to posts, stakes, for scourging. Why should the Romans use crosses wen a simple stake was so much easier? :huh: And if they used a simple stake in Rome proper, why would they use a cross in J'lem? :huh:

And we all came to a conclusion that before he was historicized he was crucified on a chresimon. You know, a Chi-Rho. Then, when they literally historicized him, they changed the chresimon to a tropaeum.

But so long as, as Sheshbazzar says, one is Hell-bent upon the venerating of an image [hanged from a tropaeum], or insisting that Antigonus was bound to and flogged on a gibbet of the same shape, we will never stop having these controversies.

:banghead:

Quite frankly I don't understand your point here...

According to Cassius Dio, Antigonus was bound to a piece of wood and flogged - and whatever the shape of that piece of wood - Antigonus was crucified.

The common definition is "nail to a cross." The scholars' definition is, "to execute a person by attaching him to and suspending him on a device made out of wood, and leaving him there to die." The ancient Romans' definition, as far as I can tell from ancient writings and epigraphy, is "to nail to and impale on a priapean crux, or just impale on a stake. Although foreigners have different ideas."

Quote:

Arguing over the shape of that piece of wood is of secondary interest - it is not the primary focus - which is suspension upon a piece of wood. And in the case of Antigonus, a living as opposed to a dead body being suspended upon a piece of wood, the victim was flogged.

How do you know his feet or at least his toes weren't on the ground?

This is getting silly.....:huh:

Quote:

As to the Greek word used by Cassius Dio - check out the footnotes on pages 10 and 70 of this book:

Ancient Jewish and Christian perceptions of crucifixion: David W. Chapman (or via: amazon.co.uk)

I've already done that, some time ago, after the discussion in xylon versus stauros thread. Chapman kind of ruins his whole scholarship when he says that for crucifixion, he says he means that in the common (and limited) English sense: nail to a cross, only.

Quote:

As to what was the shape of the piece of wood upon which the ahistorical gospel figure of JC was suspended upon - really? Whatever decision one comes to for that literary constructed gospel JC storyline - have fun ...:constern01:

The traditional shape was from Church tradition. Before Constantine, the historicist Church Fathers were saying that the New Testament Jesus was crucified in the manner that the Roman government did, on a standard Roman crux. Remove its "phallus", and you have a big wooden T or the frame of a tropeum (cross).

Below are a few quotes from Chapman's book - link above. I'm not going to argue this matter further with you - I can't see it having any purpose - and it is not the subject of the OP - which is Josephus. And Josephus makes no mention of Antigonus being bound to a cross and flogged. That is Cassius Dio. If you want to start a new thread on the JC crucifixion story, or crucifixion in ancient times - then go for it...As for the Hebrew, Greek or Latin terminology used to denote the penal suspension practices - Chapman, to my mind, has offered an excellent scholarly discussion. If you think differently - OK...

Quote:

Page 31 and 32

(1) While one might be able to speak of a general method of crucifixion in Roman practice, in fact there were many variation on execution by suspension, though the same Latin and Greek terms designate both variations and the (hypothetical?)norm.

(2) In examining Greek, Hebrew, and Jewish Aramaic, we have seen that there was no single term that only designated “Crucifixion” (in the limited sense of the English word) on a cross-shaped object. In this regard there is significant similarity in the various languages in the application of their most specific suspension terminology. These words generally permit a variety of means of suspending a human body. So, for example, xxxxxxxx in Hebrew and Aramacic and (xxxxxxxx) in Greek all have clear instances where they speak of the suspension of both living and dead bodies. Further, the shape of the device employed in many of these instances is unknown.....

(5) ......................Certainly a cross-shaped ante-mortem crucifixion could be designated in antiquity by a serious of words. But most often the ancients did not seem to care to be so specific. Instead they appear content to associate multiple suspension forms as a single penalty. The fact that this occurs in several languages leads us to conclude that generally in antiquity the form of penal bodily suspension was less significant that the fact that the body was being suspended.

(6) Although words and concepts must not be confused, this word study evidence suggests a cautionary reminder about how to study crucifixion. It seems that crucifixion was often widely regarded in the ancient world as being within the general conceptual field of human bodily suspension.

.....

This suggests that in studying the ancient world the scholar is wise not to differentiate too rigidly the categories of “crucifixion,” “ impalement,” and “suspension” (as if these were clearly to be distinguished in every instance). Hence, any study of crucifixion concepts in antiquity must grapple with the broader context of the wide variety of penal suspension of human beings.

...Nevertheless, such an English divide between “crucifixion” and “suspension” should not be taken to indicate that these were perceived by people in antiquity (including Jewish people) as wholly different spheres of punishment. On the contrary, this discussion of terminology has sought to point out the likelihood that crucifixion on a cross was simply one specific form with the broader category of human bodily suspension.

(xxxxxxxx) denotes Hebrew or Greek in the above text.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.