The Cross as a Late (Latin) 4th century Legend

[Leucius Charinus]

That Jesus was crucified on a cross is a late Latin translational embellishment of the original Greek story of the god being strung up on a stauros (tree/stake). The Cross enters the scene late with the legends of Helena. Jesus is not found on a crucifix until the 6th or 7th century. AFAIK in his place the Lamb is on the earlier (Latin) Cross. In the Gospel of Peter it talks and walks. The Latin Cross enters the scene with Jerome. What is the oldest archaeological cross?

Originally it was the Greek stauros (timber / tree / stake) upon which Jesus was strung. Does everyone acknowledge the 4th century Latin Vatican propaganda veneer of the cross? May we be for ever grateful to Pontifex Maximus Damasus and his "protégé" Jerome.

The crucifixion of Jesus on a Cross is a late (Latin) 4th century legend, and most unlikely to be true.
More likely it is that we must return to contemplate the crucifixion of Jesus on a tree, or a stake.


I'd like to repeat my thanks to Sheshbazzar for the following background ....




LC

.... Oh crap. I don't even want to do this. but it becomes necessary when sloppy lack of research and textual ignorance asserts itself.
First off the word 'crucified' derives from crucifigatur found in the Roman Latin "translations" of Greek and Hebrew texts,
as in;
' scitis quia post biduum pascha fiet et Filius hominis tradetur ut crucifigatur' (Matt 26:2)

'dicit illis Pilatus quid igitur faciam de Iesu qui dicitur Christus dicunt omnes crucifigatur ait illis praeses quid enim mali fecit at illi magis clamabant dicentes crucifigatur' (Matt 27:22-23)

'tunc dimisit illis Barabban Iesum autem flagellatum tradidit eis ut crucifigeretur ' (Matt 27:26)

'postquam autem crucifixerunt eum diviserunt vestimenta eius sortem mittentes ....' (Matt 27:35)

'tunc crucifixi sunt cum eo duo latrones unus a dextris et unus a sinistris' (Matt 27:38)

'respondens autem angelus dixit mulieribus nolite timere vos scio enim quod Iesum qui crucifixus est quaeritis' (Matt 28:5)

'Pilatus autem volens populo satisfacere dimisit illis Barabban et tradidit Iesum flagellis caesum ut crucifigeretur'' (Mark 15:15)

'et crucifigentes eum diviserunt vestimenta eius mittentes sortem super eis quis quid tolleret erat autem hora tertia et crucifixerunt eum' (Mark 15:24-25)

'Christus rex Israhel descendat nunc de cruce ut videamus et credamus et qui cum eo crucifixi erant conviciabantur ei' (Mark 15:32)

'qui dicit illis nolite expavescere Iesum quaeritis Nazarenum crucifixum surrexit non est hic ecce locus ubi posuerunt eum' (Mark 16:6)

The Roman Latin "translation". See the above words highlighted in red ? Look a bit familiar?

Now the very same texts in Greek;

λέγει αὐτοῖς ὁ Πιλᾶτος Τί οὐν ποιήσω Ἰησοῦν τὸν λεγόμενον Χριστόν λέγουσιν αὐτῷ πάντες Σταυρωθήτω ὁ δὲ ἡγεμὼν ἔφη Τί γὰρ κακὸν ἐποίησεν οἱ δὲ περισσῶς ἔκραζον λέγοντες Σταυρωθήτω (Matt 27:22-23)

τότε ἀπέλυσεν αὐτοῖς τὸν Βαραββᾶν τὸν δὲ Ἰησοῦν φραγελλώσας παρέδωκεν ἵνα σταυρωθῇ (Matt 27:26)

σταυρώσαντες δὲ αὐτὸν διεμερίσαντο τὰ ἱμάτια αὐτοῦ βάλλοντες κλῆρον ....' (Matt 27:35)

Τότε σταυροῦνται σὺν αὐτῷ δύο λῃσταί εἷς ἐκ δεξιῶν καὶ εἷς ἐξ εὐωνύμων (Matt 27:38)

ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ ὁ ἄγγελος εἰπεν ταῖς γυναιξίν, Μὴ φοβεῖσθε ὑμεῖς οἶδα γὰρ ὅτι Ἰησοῦν τὸν ἐσταυρωμένον ζητεῖτε (Matt 28:5)

ὁ δὲ Πιλᾶτος βουλόμενος τῷ ὄχλῳ τὸ ἱκανὸν ποιῆσαι ἀπέλυσεν αὐτοῖς τὸν Βαραββᾶν καὶ παρέδωκεν τὸν Ἰησοῦν φραγελλώσας ἵνα σταυρωθῇ (Mark 15:15)

καὶ σταυρώσαντες αὐτὸν διεμερίζον τὰ ἱμάτια αὐτοῦ βάλλοντες κλῆρον ἐπ᾽ αὐτὰ τίς τί ἄρῃ
ἦν δὲ ὥρα τρίτη καὶ ἐσταύρωσαν αὐτόν (Mark 15:24-25)

ὁ Χριστὸς ὁ βασιλεὺς τοῦ Ἰσραὴλ καταβάτω νῦν ἀπὸ τοῦ σταυροῦ ἵνα ἴδωμεν καὶ πιστεύσωμεν καὶ οἱ συνεσταυρωμένοι αὐτῷ ὠνείδιζον αὐτόν (Mark 15:32)

ὁ δὲ λέγει αὐταῖς Μὴ ἐκθαμβεῖσθε Ἰησοῦν ζητεῖτε τὸν Ναζαρηνὸν τὸν ἐσταυρωμένον ἠγέρθη οὐκ ἔστιν ὧδε ἴδε ὁ τόπος ὅπου ἔθηκαν αὐτόν (Mark 16:6)

See the above words highlighted in red ? Do they look a familiar?
Not likely.
And most here with little or no knowledge of Greek will be at loss as how to pronounce most of them, much less be able to appreciate the inflections indicated by the varying prefixes and suffixes.
However, some may be aware though their studies that each of these are variants of the Greek terms σταυρόω 'stauroō and σταυρός 'stauros'. Not a one of them specifically means to 'crucify' by means of 'crucifixion' on a 'cross' or 'crucifix'.
that 'spin' only comes to us via way of the late Latin Vulgate's lingo, and Roman religious traditions that embrace and employ its misnomers. ...and our generally blind ignorant, gullible, and acquiescent following of Roman Catholic lingo traditions.

The latter Roman Latin translation (Vulgate) places a stress on 'de cruce' and 'crucifix' ('the Cross') and 'crucify/crucified' that is quite alien to the sense and idiomatic conveyance of the ancient Hebrew and Greek words. This fact may be observed in translations and wordings of the older pre-Vulgate Hebrew and Greek renderings;
In consideration of the (alleged) manner of death of 'Jesus of Nazareth', the 'prophecy fulfillment' text for this is;

22. And if a man have committed a sin worthy of death, and he be to be put to death, and you hang him on a tree:
23. His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but you shall in any wise bury him that day; (for he that is hanged is accursed of Elohim;) that your land be not defiled, Yahweh your Elohi gives you for an inheritance. (Deut 21:22-23)

30. The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree. (Acts 5:30)

39. And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree: (Acts 10:39)

_interesting these. In Deut 21:22 'he be to be put to death' is followed by 'and you hang him on a tree', and in Acts Jesus is described as 'slain' first, THEN he is 'hanged on a tree'. They were quite obviously trying to follow the order presented in Deut 21 for 'prophecy fulfillment'.
(The writers of Acts really should have informed the Gospel writers of that bit, ...or vice versa.)

Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangs on a tree: (Gal 3:13)

That the Latin usage sense is alien to the original sense of the Hebrew and Greek vorlage texts, is also further evidenced by the virtually complete lack of any Christian 'Cross' or 'crucifix' iconology in the Archaeological record until well into the 4th century CE, following the publication of the Vulgate 'version', and the ascendancy and influence of Roman Catholicism and the Vulgate.

In analysis of the here present controversy, the fact is that the older sense that is present in both Hebrew and Greek vorlage the stress is upon the fact of any manner of death by, or while, or even followed by 'hanging upon wood'.

Even the NT Latin Vulgate has to deal with this 'wood' thing, as in Acts 5:30
"Deus patrum nostrorum suscitavit Iesum quem vos interemistis suspendentes in ligno ."

In Acts 10:39
"et nos testes sumus omnium quae fecit in regione Iudaeorum et Hierusalem quem et occiderunt suspendentes in ligno

In Acts 13:29
"cumque consummassent omnia quae de eo scripta erant deponentes eum de ligno posuerunt in monumento"

In Gal 3:13
"Christus nos redemit de maledicto legis factus pro nobis maledictum quia scriptum est maledictus omnis qui pendet in ligno "

And in 1 Peter 2:24
"qui peccata nostra ipse pertulit in corpore suo super lignum ut peccatis mortui iustitiae viveremus cuius livore sanati estis"

"in ligno", "de ligno", or 'lignum" meaning 'wood'_in any manner, shape, or form. Most certainly not specifically constrained the shape or form of a 'cross' or crucifix.

Hence any death by any mythic hero, god, or goddess that involved hanging upon wood, -before or after death-, or by piercing/dismemberment on or by means of wood, or by any implement made of wood actually IS a parallel to the requirements of the ancient Scriptural trope.
'crucifixion' upon any form of a 'cross' is in no way a necessary element in the establishing of these parallels.
Details as to the form of the death instrument, or details of the circumstances of death, is only the adding of elaboration and embellishment upon the basic theme.

All that the authentic ancient Hebrew and Greek vorlage requires, is that such death be upon, or by the means of wood. (no need of any nails or rope either) any common 'tree', or any manner of wood implement from a bare wooden 'stake' to an elaborate wooden rack as long as death is by means of, or even followed by being upon "wood".

The Latin didn't need for communication purposes, to employ the terms 'de cruce' 'crux' or 'crucifix', it was a religious selection which supported the emergent iconography and 'crucifix' icon adoration/worship which had in the 4th century CE been adapted and adopted from the Imperial cult usages by syncretizing and pandering Roman Catholicism.
Kiss the Emperors royal icon, kiss the Emperors royal @$$.

Even knowing the subject matter going in, I spent over twelve hours on the collating and composing of this post.
Cool that GakuseiDon's presentation of Carrier's explanation agrees with my own research and findings on the principal points.

Working with the actual texts beats the hell out of 'scholarship' that consist of little more than watching YouTube videos and the quote mining of assertions from authority.
.

[Sheshbazzar]

The original Christian 'cross'.


Coin of Ptolemy III Euergetes, circa 220 BCE

500 years latter Constantine looks up in the sky, and what does he see? The old Chi-Rho 'cross', that bit of ancient pagan Egyptian bird shit, symbol of half a dozen previous gods. He cobbs it and makes it his own god monogram.

Kiss the Emperor's royal Imperial icon, kiss the Emperor's royal 'ring' (anus) fer Christ sake, and they surely did.
And presently stole his old monogram for their own paper godling. And the rest is history.

[MrMacSon]

There has been previous discussion on this Forum in this tread - http://www.earlywritings.com/forum/view ... +gun#p9489

[Sheshbazzar]

I read the entire thread, which dealt principally with the Tau-Rho staurogram and its connections to the events of the 30s CE.
Constantine's 'thing' was, according to all reports, the Chi-Rho ☧ which had a far longer and colorful history, which while it is easily found on 3rd century BCE coinage, evidently had been passed around among the various cults and philosophies for a long time before.
Christians associated the symbol ☧ with the title 'CHrist', but it had for who knows how many centuries BCE been the symbol of Chronos and other equivalent deities, and as a early symbol for cultic ritual usages and the earmarking of 'auspicious' and prognosticating texts.
Whatever, Christianity glommed onto it from Constantine (or Constantine from them) and having made it their own proceeded to wipe out and exterminate all who had previously employed it.

The actual vorlage of Greek and underlying Hebrew does not specify any particular shape or form, the only thing specific is that it is wooden to coincide with the prophecies about a 'tree' (not necessarily a 'tree,' as both Hebrew and Greek terms properly only signify 'wood', in any form, 'tree' is translators choice.)
And as I said, 'cross' and 'crucifixion' creeps in on us from 4th century Roman Latin, and misleading Latin translations of earlier Greek and Hebrew mss.

[Clive]

I love Constantine's alleged last words to his Christian bishops "you better be right"!

[Sheshbazzar]

What I thought interesting in reading up on Constantine and his adoption of the Chi Rho symbol, was according to the elaborate Christian traditions, of how Maxentius' and his army quailed in fear at the very sight of it. so much so that it affected Maxentius battle strategy, throwing it into total disarray.

This tells me something that they likely did not intend their account to reveal. This symbol if Maxentius and his Legions had never seen it before, and been unfamiliar with it, it would have meant and signified nothing, just a meaningless decoration or so much gibberish to them.
But the reaction that Eusebius & Co reports indicates that this symbol was well known to Maxentius and his troops, and with that fore-knowledge the appearance of the ☧ on Constantine's standards and shields represented to those beholding it some well known, and commonly understood to be very powerful ju ju.

Of course, we know and have the material evidence to prove it, that this insignia had been in religious useage for well over 500 years before Constantine's celebrated 'vision' as related to us by Eusebius.
Methinks Eusebius was a story inventor, and that Constantine never actually had any such 'miraculous vision', he had simply chosen to adopt that old religo/magic/royal iconic symbol that countless rulers before him had also employed.
And as Maxentius and his armies symbol was the serpent, this played right into the Christ cults hands. Maxentius was the Prince of Darkness incarnate, and his army worshippers of the old Serpent, Satan, the Devil.

.