New book on crucifixion in the ancient world

[andrewcriddle]

Hi Ben,

I think there is some suspicious translations in these examples. Take, for example Barnabas 9.7

'For the scripture saith; And Abraham circumcised of his household eighteen males and three hundred. What then was the knowledge given unto him? Understand ye that He saith the eighteen first, and then after an interval three hundred In the eighteen 'I' stands for ten, 'H' for eight. Here thou hast JESUS (IHSOYS). And because the cross in the 'T' was to have grace, He saith also three hundred. So He revealeth Jesus in the two letters, and in the remaining one the cross."

We should look at the context of this:

9:6 But he will say, Of a truth the people have been
circumcised for a seal unto them; but so, also, hath
every Syrian and Arabian, and all the priests of
idols. Do they also belong to the covenant? But the
Egyptians also are in circumcision.
9:7 Learn, therefore, children of love, richly
concerning all things, that Abraham, who first gave
circumcision, circumcised, looking forward in the
spirit unto Jesus, having received the doctrines of
the three letters.
9:8 For he saith, And Abraham circumcised out of his
household eighteen and three hundred. What, then, was
the knowledge that was given by this? Learn ye, that
he mentioneth the eighteen first, and then, having
made an interval, he mentioneth the three hundred. In
the eighteen, IH, you have Jesus; and because the
cross in the letter T was about to convey the grace of
redemption, he mentioneth also the three hundred.
Therefore, he showeth Jesus in the two letters, IH,
and the cross in the one, T."

The point is that not everybody circumcised in the flesh is attached to God. It does not make sense to see any reference to the Jesus crucifixion tale here. Rather we should assume that the word "Stavros" (stake, cross) should mean something like "attachment by force" as a Stavros - stake, is a thing that attaches by force. Thus we can translate it to make sense this way, with the red standing for the actual meaning and the blue standing for the mistaken translation:

'For the scripture saith; And Abraham circumcised of his household eighteen males and three hundred. What then was the knowledge given unto him? Understand ye that He saith the eighteen first, and then after an interval three hundred In the eighteen 'I' stands for ten, 'H' for eight. Here thou hast JESUS (IHSOYS)IH. And because the cross attachment by force in the ' T 300 was to have grace, He saith also three hundred. So He revealeth IE eighteen in the two letters, and in the remaining one the cross the attachment by force.

"

Thus the author was contrasting the actual small elite and legitimate group - the 18 who were circumcised with the large illegitimate group, the 300, who was attached by force through circumcision. By mistranslating the words "stavros" as "cross" instead of attachment by force and the "IH" as Jesus instead of the number 18, and the "T" as the letter Tau instead of the number 300, we get a reference to the Jesus New Testament tale that was not in the original text.

Warmly,
Jay Raskin

It seems clear that Barnabas did mean something like crucifixion by stauros see for example

In like manner again He defineth concerning the cross in another
prophet, who saith; And when shall these things be accomplished?
saith the Lord. Whenever a tree shall be bended and stand upright,
and whensoever blood shall drop from a tree. Again thou art taught
concerning the cross, and Him that was to be crucified.

And He saith again in Moses, when war was waged against Israel by men
of another nation, and that He might remind them when the war was
waged against them that for their sins they were delivered unto
death; the Spirit saith to the heart of Moses, that he should make a
type of the cross and of Him that was to suffer, that unless, saith
He, they shall set their hope on Him, war shall be waged against them
for ever. Moses therefore pileth arms one upon another in the midst
of the encounter, and standing on higher ground than any he stretched
out his hands, and so Israel was again victorious. Then, whenever he
lowered them, they were slain with the sword.

Andrew Criddle

[Ben C. Smith]

Hi Ben,

I think there is some suspicious translations in these examples. Take, for example Barnabas 9.7

'For the scripture saith; And Abraham circumcised of his household eighteen males and three hundred. What then was the knowledge given unto him? Understand ye that He saith the eighteen first, and then after an interval three hundred In the eighteen 'I' stands for ten, 'H' for eight. Here thou hast JESUS (IHSOYS). And because the cross in the 'T' was to have grace, He saith also three hundred. So He revealeth Jesus in the two letters, and in the remaining one the cross."

We should look at the context of this:

9:6 But he will say, Of a truth the people have been
circumcised for a seal unto them; but so, also, hath
every Syrian and Arabian, and all the priests of
idols. Do they also belong to the covenant? But the
Egyptians also are in circumcision.
9:7 Learn, therefore, children of love, richly
concerning all things, that Abraham, who first gave
circumcision, circumcised, looking forward in the
spirit unto Jesus, having received the doctrines of
the three letters.
9:8 For he saith, And Abraham circumcised out of his
household eighteen and three hundred. What, then, was
the knowledge that was given by this? Learn ye, that
he mentioneth the eighteen first, and then, having
made an interval, he mentioneth the three hundred. In
the eighteen, IH, you have Jesus; and because the
cross in the letter T was about to convey the grace of
redemption, he mentioneth also the three hundred.
Therefore, he showeth Jesus in the two letters, IH,
and the cross in the one, T."

The point is that not everybody circumcised in the flesh is attached to God. It does not make sense to see any reference to the Jesus crucifixion tale here. Rather we should assume that the word "Stavros" (stake, cross) should mean something like "attachment by force" as a Stavros - stake, is a thing that attaches by force. Thus we can translate it to make sense this way, with the red standing for the actual meaning and the blue standing for the mistaken translation:

'For the scripture saith; And Abraham circumcised of his household eighteen males and three hundred. What then was the knowledge given unto him? Understand ye that He saith the eighteen first, and then after an interval three hundred In the eighteen 'I' stands for ten, 'H' for eight. Here thou hast JESUS (IHSOYS)IH. And because the cross attachment by force in the ' T 300 was to have grace, He saith also three hundred. So He revealeth IE eighteen in the two letters, and in the remaining one the cross the attachment by force.

"

Thus the author was contrasting the actual small elite and legitimate group - the 18 who were circumcised with the large illegitimate group, the 300, who was attached by force through circumcision. By mistranslating the words "stavros" as "cross" instead of attachment by force and the "IH" as Jesus instead of the number 18, and the "T" as the letter Tau instead of the number 300, we get a reference to the Jesus New Testament tale that was not in the original text.

I confess I do not understand any of this.

[iskander]

Crucifixion in the Rome of Marcus Tullius Cicero

Cic. Ver. 2.5.163
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... tion%3D163

Did you dare to drag any one to the cross who said that he was a Roman citizen? I was unwilling, O judges, to press this point so strongly at the former pleading; I was unwilling to do so. For you saw how the feelings of the multitude were excited against him with indignation, and hatred, and fear of their common danger. I, at that time, fixed a limit to my oration, and checked the eagerness of Caius Numitorius a Roman knight, a man of the highest character, one of my witnesses.
And I rejoiced that Glabrio had acted (and he had acted most wisely) as he did in dismissing that witness immediately, in the middle of the discussion. In fact he was afraid that the Roman people might seem to have inflicted that punishment on Verres by tumultuary violence, which he was anxious he should only suffer according to the laws and by your judicial sentence.

Cic. Ver. 2.5.164
...that that Publius Gavius whom you crucified was a Roman citizen, and a citizen of the municipality of Cosa, not a spy of runaway slaves.

Cic. Ver. 2.5.165
...Gavius, but men who say that they saw him at the time that he was being dragged to the cross, while crying out that he was a Roman citizen. And you, O Verres, say the same thing. You confess that he did cry out that he was a Roman citizen; but that the name of citizenship did not avail with you even as much as to cause the least hesitation in your mind, or even any brief respite from a most cruel and ignominious punishment.


Cic. Ver. 2.5.166
ought not he, whoever he was, whom you were hurrying to the cross, who was a stranger to you, to have been able, when he said that he was a Roman citizen, to obtain from you, the praetor, if not an escape, at least a respite from death by his mention of and claims to citizenship?
...
Cic. Ver. 2.5.169
enemy to the individual, but to the common cause of liberty. For what was your object in ordering the Mamertines, when, according to their regular custom and usage, they had erected the cross behind the city in the Pompeian road, to place it where it looked towards the strait; and in adding, what you can by no means deny, what you said openly in the hearing of every one, that you chose that place in order that the man who said that he was a Roman citizen, might be able from his cross to behold Italy and to look towards his own home? And accordingly, O judges, that cross, for the first time since the foundation of Messana, was erected in that place. A spot commanding a view of Italy was picked out by that man, for the express purpose that the wretched man who was dying in agony and torture might see that the rights of liberty and of slavery were only separated by a very narrow strait, and that Italy might behold her son murdered by the most miserable and most painful punishment appropriate to slaves alone.

Cic. Pis. 18.42
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... ,027:18:42
[42] Should I, if I were to see you and Gabinius both nailed to a cross, feel greater rejoicing at the laceration of your bodies, than I do at the tearing to pieces of your reputations?

Appian, The Civil Wars
CHAPTER XIV

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... apter%3D14

[120] On account of this vote Crassus tried in every way to come to an engagement with Spartacus so that Pompey might not reap the glory of the war...
They divided themselves in four parts, and continued to fight until they all perished except 6000, who were captured and crucified along the whole road from Capua to Rome.

[jayraskin]

Hi Andrew,

I think this also passage also shows a mistake in transmission and/or translation.The two images put forward are of a tree bending over and pouring out blood when it stands upright again and Moses doing the same thing, standing upright, he stretches out his arms and the Jews shed blood, but when he lowers his arms, Jewish blood is shed. The references seem to be to some kind of baptism ceremony, but nothing to do with the idea of Jesus' crucifixion.


Warmly,

Jay Raskin

It seems clear that Barnabas did mean something like crucifixion by stauros see for example

In like manner again He defineth concerning the cross in another
prophet, who saith; And when shall these things be accomplished?
saith the Lord. Whenever a tree shall be bended and stand upright,
and whensoever blood shall drop from a tree. Again thou art taught
concerning the cross, and Him that was to be crucified.

And He saith again in Moses, when war was waged against Israel by men
of another nation, and that He might remind them when the war was
waged against them that for their sins they were delivered unto
death; the Spirit saith to the heart of Moses, that he should make a
type of the cross and of Him that was to suffer, that unless, saith
He, they shall set their hope on Him, war shall be waged against them
for ever. Moses therefore pileth arms one upon another in the midst
of the encounter, and standing on higher ground than any he stretched
out his hands, and so Israel was again victorious. Then, whenever he
lowered them, they were slain with the sword.

Andrew Criddle[/quote]