Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑
Thu Nov 12, 2020 7:54 am
mlinssen wrote: ↑
Thu Nov 12, 2020 1:19 am
Do you have pointers to texts there? I'm unfamiliar with the Greek verb
Sure. The following are not exhaustive, of course. I have arranged them roughly in chronological order from Herodotus to century II, since we do not know exactly when Barnabas wrote, but sometime in century II is the latest possibility:
I knew that when you said that, quite the list would follow LOL
Herodotus, Histories 3.125.1-4: 1 But Polycrates would listen to no advice. He sailed to meet Oroetes, with a great retinue of followers, among whom was Democedes, son of Calliphon, a man of Croton and the most skillful physician of his time. 2 But no sooner had Polycrates come to Magnesia than he was horribly murdered in a way unworthy of him and of his aims; for, except for the sovereigns of Syracuse, no sovereign of Greek race is fit to be compared with Polycrates for magnificence. 3 Having killed him [ἀποκτείνας] in some way not fit to be told, Oroetes then crucified [ἀνεσταύρωσε] him; as for those who had accompanied him, he let the Samians go, telling them to thank him that they were free; those who were not Samians, or were servants of Polycrates’ followers, he kept for slaves. 4 And Polycrates hanging in the air fulfilled his daughter’s vision in every detail; for he was washed by Zeus when it rained, and he was anointed by Helios as he exuded sweat from his body.
"Put-on-stauros", ἀν-ε-σταύρωσε, impaled would be just as fine a translation there, no clues to a cross whatsoever here - or is there?
Xenophon, Anabasis 3.1.17: 17 “And yet if we submit and fall into the king’s hands, what do we imagine our fate is to be? Even in the case of his own brother, and, yet more, when he was already dead [τεθνηκότος ἤδη], this man cut off his head and his hand and crucified [ἀνεσταύρωσεν] them; as for ourselves, then, who have no one to intercede for us, and who took the field against him with the intention of making him a slave rather than a king and of killing him if we could, what fate may we expect to suffer?”
Definitely impaled as the only translation, it's pretty hard to crucify disjointed limbs, whereas putting each on a pole is far more plausible - or is it?
Polybius, Histories 1.86.3-4 (English translation from Evelyn S. Shuckburgh): 3 Hannibal pitched his camp on the side of the town nearest to Carthage, and Hamilcar on the opposite side. 4 When this was done they brought the captives taken from the army of Spendius and crucified them in the sight of the enemy. / 3 κατὰ μὲν οὖν τὴν ἀπὸ Καρχηδόνος πλευρὰν προσεστρατοπέδευσεν Ἀννίβας, κατὰ δὲ τὴν ἀπέναντι ταύτης Ἀμίλκας. 4 μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα προσαγαγόντες πρὸς τὰ τείχη τοὺς περὶ τὸν Σπένδιον αἰχμαλώτους ἐσταύρωσαν ἐπιφανῶς.
"(Put-)on-stauros", ἀν-ε-σταύρωσε, impaled would be just as fine a translation there, no clues to a cross whatsoever here - or is there?
Diodorus Siculus, Library of History 2.18.1 (English translation slightly modified from that of C. H. Oldfather): 1 When he had made all his preparations for the war he despatched messengers to Semiramis, who was already on the road, accusing her of being the aggressor in the war although she had been injured in no respect; then, in the course of his letter, after saying many slanderous things against her as being a strumpet and calling upon the gods as witnesses, he threatened to nail her to a cross [αὐτὴν σταυρῷ προσηλώσειν] when he had defeated her.
προσηλώσειν means, to the best of my knwoledge, "affix". Having a hard time quickly finding a pointer to that
4Q169, fragments 3-4, column 1, lines 6b-8a: 6b And concerning what he says: «He fills] his cave [with prey] and his den with spoils» (= Nahum 2.13), ~ its interpretation concerns the Angry Lion 7 [who filled his cave with a mass of corpses, carrying out rev]enge against those looking for easy interpretations [דורשי החלקות], who hanged living men 8a [from the tree, committing an atrocity which had not been committed] in Israel since ancient times, for it is [hor]rible for the one hanged alive from the tree.
I thought we limited the scope of our little discussion to the Greek word σταυρός - at least I did, as my comment was about "the stauros in T", which could very well mean the vertical line, the stake
Seneca the Younger, Moral Essays 6.20.3a, to Marcia on consolation: 3a I see before me crosses not all alike, but differently made by different peoples: some hang a man head downwards, some force a stick upwards through his groin, some stretch out his arms on a gibbet. I see cords, scourges, and instruments of torture for each limb and each joint. / 3 Video istic cruces non unius quidem generis sed aliter ab aliis fabricatas: capite quidam conversos in terram suspendere, alii per obscena stipitem egerunt, alii brachia patibulo explicuerunt; video fidiculas, video verbera, et membris singulis articulis singula nocuerunt machinamenta.
Likewise. I don't doubt the use of crucifixion, but do doubt that putting people on a σταυρός meant anything else that implaing prior to Christianity (in any form). Latin here, so out of scope
Lucian, The Consonants at Law
Like Josephus, too late. Likewise for Artemidorus Daldianus and Pseudo-Manetho
Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑
Wed Nov 11, 2020 1:36 pm
I wasn't quite clear there, what I mean is the numerical value of the TLA in Hebrew
Ah, I see. Thanks for clarifying. In that case, why does the ΙΗΣ not appear in Sinaiticus as such? The Greek name for the number does, written in full (δεκαοκτὼ καὶ τριακοσίους, eighteen and three hundred), but the payload in the text is ΙΝ. What is your take on that?
I feel that starting over would be best here.
When reading Barnabas, it seems to me that he "overheard" a Hebrew saying that "it is so striking that Genesis already refers to Jesus with the number of his servants representing Him": the 318 there points straight to IHS in Hebrew (which doesn't get spelled out n the occassion).
Now, Barnabas takes that literal (imaginary) quote, goes home and consults the Tanakh himself - naturally, in Greek.
So he reads the 318, quickly digs the 18 being a 10 and an 8 representing I and H (etha), but scratches his head (among others) about the 300 as that points to Tau. Then he remembers the Gospel of Thomas (oh yeah I'm letting it all go now LOL) that explicitly speaks of:
say(s) IS : he-who hate his father not with his(F) mother he will be-able make-be Disciple not to I and not he hate his(PL) brother with his(PL) sister not he carry of his Stauros within my(F) manner he will come-to-be not he make-be Worthy-one to I
and then he looks at the T and sees the vertical I represent the stauros, the stake - it's frfetched but the best he can do
Yet what is really in the text? Your translation is really off, that in Perseus is off - or I need new glasses, that is very well possible:
The papyrus says (capitals for what I read besides your quote)
μαθετε οτι τους δεκαοκτω PRO
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... 08.01.0629
TOUS KAI DIASTE
MA POIHSAS LEGeI
δεκα οκτω εχεις IN
μάθετε, ὅτι τοὺς δεκαοκτὼ πρώτους, καὶ διάστημα ποιήσας λέγει τριακοσίους. τὸ δεκαοκτὼ (ι δέκα, η ὀκτώ:) ἔχεις Ἰησοῦν
and you have: (http://www.textexcavation.com/greekbarnabas9-12.html
μαθετε οτι τους δεκαοκτω, Ι δεκα, Η οκτω· εχεις Ιησουν
so you're missing a piece there. But even Perseus doesn't coincide with the papyrus you show in viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3149&start=70#p114423
, and what I don't see there is what I put in round brackets.
So, what the text literally says, is
μάθετε, ὅτι τοὺς
τους καὶ διάστη
μα ποιήσας λέγει
disciple, so-that the
rst and - inter-
val produced - said
three hundred the
And then it gets really interesting, doesn't it?