Trees, crosses, and outstretched hands.

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8252
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Trees, crosses, and outstretched hands.

Post by Ben C. Smith » Sat Nov 14, 2020 1:56 pm

mlinssen wrote:
Fri Nov 13, 2020 11:15 pm
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Fri Nov 13, 2020 9:47 pm
Okay, you edited your post, and then mine crossed with yours.
Yes, dead end there. Back to Barnabas and his impossible math of 18 and 300 having anything to do with IN, which is 10 and 50...
Well, whatever the ΙΝ means, you cannot accuse Barnabas of not having committed to the bit. He ends the previous verse with προβλέψας εἰς τὸν ΙΝ περιέτεμεν λαβὼν Γ γραμμάτων δόγματα:

ΙΝ Again.png
ΙΝ Again.png (300.3 KiB) Viewed 1355 times

ΙΝ again, with a Γ thrown in for good measure.

robert j
Posts: 760
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 5:01 pm

Re: Trees, crosses, and outstretched hands.

Post by robert j » Fri Nov 27, 2020 10:18 am

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Thu Nov 12, 2020 4:58 pm
robert j wrote:
Thu Nov 12, 2020 4:25 pm
For the cut-and-paste translation of the 1st C. BCE Greek story by Diodorus Siculus that you cited about the legendary, very ancient Assyrian queen Semiramis --- Do you believe that the translation of σταυρῷ as the specialized “cross”, rather than the more general “stake”, introduces a hard to justify bias to the text?
Probably?
In the summary of his extensive review of the (non-Christian) Greek literature from Homer through the first century CE, Samuelsson writes ---

When σταυρός is used in connection with human bodily suspensions, it seems to be only a simple wooden pole used in an unspecified suspension. This at least is all that can be read out of the texts. (p. 146)

Due to the diverse usage of the noun it is simply not possible to draw the conclusion that σταυρός means “cross” in the way it is often depicted (t). (p. 146)

The problem is the imprecise usage of the terms. They are per se simply not sufficient as indicators ... none of the nouns means "cross." In the light of this it is odd to see that so many scholars use this very method - the terms per se - to sift out their crucifixion references. (p. 147)

[Gunnar Samuelsson, Crucifixion in Antiquity --- An Inquiry into the Background and Significance of the New Testament Terminology of Crucifixion, 2011]

Here’s an example from one of the earliest extant texts about a Jesus Christ, using the nearly universal translation convention in the NT for the Greek term σταυρός ---

“… the cross (σταυρός) of Christ ... (1 Corinthians 1:17)

Based on the extant pre-Pauline use of the Greek term σταυρός, and the internal information in Paul’s letters, do you think this niche translation of σταυρός as the specialized “cross”, rather than the more general “stake”, introduces a bias to this Pauline text?

Post Reply