Trees, crosses, and outstretched hands.

[mlinssen]

In his First Apology, 55 Justin refers to various objects as [supposedly] shaped like the cross of Christ [but notes humans as erect, like a stake, I presume, and cites σταυρός]: "The sea is not traversed except that trophy which is called a sail abide safe in the ship … And the human form differs from that of the irrational animals in nothing else than in its being erect and having the hands extended, and having on the face extending from the forehead what is called the nose, through which there is respiration for the living creature; and this shows no other form than that of the cross (σταυρός)."

Now that is it. Look at the papyrus, and you'll see at line 8 from the bottom: ⲥ⳨ⲟⲥ

https://www.freelyreceive.net/metalogos ... can/11.jpg

Now that does resemble, with immense effort, a human being who stands with his legs closed, his arms (not just hands LOL) outstretched to both sides, and with his face turned sideways - with the nose giving shape to the round in the top.
So, for the viewers at home, the human looks to the right, whereas he looks to the left of course himself

[mlinssen]

Thomas could support the 'tree' reading as easily as the cross

"You don't understand who I am from what I say to you. Rather, you have become like the Judeans, for they love the tree but hate its fruit, or they love the fruit but hate the tree"

It isn't difficult to read this as Jesus being the fruit of the tree Saint Ephrem could say "under the old covenant the tree of life remained hidden and it was only with the crucifixion that it was finally made manifest". Thus the Fruit of the Tree of Life that gives immortality to those who eat of it is the Body of Christ for him

Is Thomas unaware of this symbology?

Thomas would be unaware of Ephraem, yes. He was born in 306, unless you mean someone different from https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephrem_the_Syrian

Your symbology is a riddle to me. Tree, fruit - which is what?

[mlinssen]

The section at the bottom, Early Christian descriptions, notes with reference to the Epistle of Barnabas, 9:7-8, -

Referring to what he saw as Old Testament intimations of Jesus and his cross, he [Barnabas] likened the cross to the letter T (the Greek letter tau, which had the numeric value of 300), thus describing it as having a crossbeam. He also wrote, with regard to Exodus 17:11–12: "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."

As an aside, with reference to the use of nomina sacra in Thomas (and other texts), the Roberts-Donaldson english version of Barnabas, http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... berts.html, has in relation to the numerical value (Gematra?) at the end of chapter IX -

Learn then, my children, concerning all things richly, that Abraham, the first who enjoined circumcision, looking forward in spirit to Jesus, practised that rite, having received the mysteries of the three letters. For [the Scripture] saith, "And Abraham circumcised ten, and eight, and three hundred men of his household." What, then, was the knowledge - γνωσισ, gnosis - given to him in this? Learn the eighteen first, and then the three hundred. The ten and the eight are thus denoted--Ten by I, and Eight by H. You have [the initials of the, name of] Jesus. And because the cross was to express the grace [of our redemption] by the letter [Tau, Τ,] says also, "Three Hundred". He signifies, therefore, Jesus by two letters, and the cross by one. He knows this, who has put within us the engrafted gift of His doctrine. No one has been admitted by me to a more excellent piece of knowledge than this, but I know that ye are worthy.

eta: and the Greek would say the same, of course, -

7 Μαθετε ουν, τεκνα αγαπης, περι παντων πλουσιως, οτι Αβρααμ, πρωτος περιτομην δους, εν πνευματι προβλεψας εις τον Ιησουν περιετεμεν, λαβων τριων γραμματων δογματα.
8 λεγει γαρ· Και περιετεμεν Αβρααμ εκ του οικου αυτου ανδρας δεκαοκτω και τρακοσιους. τις ουν η δοθεισα αυτω γνωσισ; μαθετε οτι τους δεκαοκτω, Ι δεκα, Η οκτω· εχεις Ιησουν. οτι δε ο σταυρος εν τω Τ ημελλεν εχειν την χαριν, λεγει και τριακοσιους. δηλοι ουν τον μεν Ιησουν εν τοις δυσιν γραμμασιν, και εν τω ενι τον σταυρον.
9 οιδεν ο την εμφυτον δωρεαν της διαθηκης αυτου θεμενος εν ημιν. ουδεις γνησιωτερον εμαθεν απ εμου λογον, αλλα οιδα οτι αξιοι εστε υμεις.
http://www.textexcavation.com/greekbarnabas9-12.html

eta2: re 'ουδεις γνησιωτερον εμαθεν απ εμου λογον': λογον = logon/logos

might translate better as, "no one has learned a/the word more truly than I have"

Funny thing is that Ben and I discussed it, and the papyrus says... IN!!!

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3149&start=70#p114423

Barnabas is a goofball, such is for sure

[Ben C. Smith]

Funny thing is that Ben and I discussed it, and the papyrus says... IN!!!

Nitpick: not a papyrus. Parchment.

[davidmartin]

Thomas could support the 'tree' reading as easily as the cross

"You don't understand who I am from what I say to you. Rather, you have become like the Judeans, for they love the tree but hate its fruit, or they love the fruit but hate the tree"

It isn't difficult to read this as Jesus being the fruit of the tree Saint Ephrem could say "under the old covenant the tree of life remained hidden and it was only with the crucifixion that it was finally made manifest". Thus the Fruit of the Tree of Life that gives immortality to those who eat of it is the Body of Christ for him

Is Thomas unaware of this symbology?

Thomas would be unaware of Ephraem, yes. He was born in 306, unless you mean someone different from https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephrem_the_Syrian

Your symbology is a riddle to me. Tree, fruit - which is what?

let's say there was an actual crucifixion, but on a tree
then tree of life being connected with it makes sense because it's such an ancient symbol
the cross is a new concept, the tree of life is an ancient one
the two are very similar, in the gospel of Phillip they are connected together explicitly
if people look for crucifixion reference in Thomas can the reference to the tree be ignored even as a footnote i think it deserves a mention?
for 'fruit of the tree' see also the gospel of truth "He was nailed to a cross/tree. He became a fruit of the knowledge of the Father" (i'm not so sure whether the Coptic has tree or cross here)

[mlinssen]

Your symbology is a riddle to me. Tree, fruit - which is what?

let's say there was an actual crucifixion, but on a tree
then tree of life being connected with it makes sense because it's such an ancient symbol
the cross is a new concept, the tree of life is an ancient one
the two are very similar, in the gospel of Phillip they are connected together explicitly
if people look for crucifixion reference in Thomas can the reference to the tree be ignored even as a footnote i think it deserves a mention?
for 'fruit of the tree' see also the gospel of truth "He was nailed to a cross/tree. He became a fruit of the knowledge of the Father" (i'm not so sure whether the Coptic has tree or cross here)

https://www.academia.edu/35461016/The_G ... ranslation

18:24
asouwsF. auaftF. au$e. af-<br/>
and brought to naught. They nailed him to a tree and he
18:25
$wpe Nnoutax Mpisaune N-
became a fruit of the knowledge of

Unbelievable that Mark still uses the old Coptic font, terrible.
Here's my transcription:

Ⲁ Ⲥ ⲞⲨⲰⲤ Ϥ Ⲁ Ⲩ ⲀϤⲦ Ϥ Ⲁ Ⲩ ϢⲈ Ⲁ Ϥ
Did it bring-to-naught him did they ??? him to a wood did he
ϢⲰⲠⲈ Ⲛ Ⲛ ⲞⲨⲦⲀϨ ⲘⲠⲒⲤⲀⲨⲚⲈ Ⲛ
become . of fruit ??? of

Ⲁ likely is Ⲉ, that initiates tenses, phrases, and whatnot. I've represented it with a dot where I don't find immediate use for it. It can also be just Ⲁ, best translated with "did"

Now, how about the cross or tree? Well, none of the above, the word is "wood": https://coptic-dictionary.org/entry.cgi?tla=C5699

Not only that, ⲱϥⲧ is the verb for nail: http://coptot.manuscriptroom.com/crum-c ... pageID=536 yet ⲀϤⲦ is not a known variant. However, I can't quickly find where that comes from

Nor can I find ⲠⲒⲤⲀⲨⲚⲈ, it really is a very bad evening for me

So, short answer: wood

[MrMacSon]

In his First Apology, 55 Justin refers to various objects as [supposedly] shaped like the cross of Christ [but notes humans as erect, like a stake, I presume, and cites σταυρός]: "The sea is not traversed except that trophy which is called a sail abide safe in the ship … And the human form differs from that of the irrational animals in nothing else than in its being erect and having the hands extended, and having on the face extending from the forehead what is called the nose, through which there is respiration for the living creature; and this shows no other form than that of the cross (σταυρός)."

Now that is it. Look at the papyrus, and you'll see at line 8 from the bottom: ⲥ⳨ⲟⲥ

https://www.freelyreceive.net/metalogos ... can/11.jpg

aha!

Now that does resemble, with immense effort, a human being who stands with his legs closed, his arms (not just hands LOL) outstretched to both sides, and with his face turned sideways - with the nose giving shape to the round in the top.
So, for the viewers at home, the human looks to the right, whereas he looks to the left of course himself

I wonder if "having the hands extended" might mean extended vertically thus -

Justus_Lipsius_Crux_Simplex_1629.jpg (55.5 KiB) Viewed 7145 times

Crucifixion on a crux simplex ad affixionem:
drawing in a 1629 reprint of De cruce of Justus Lipsius (1547-1606)

image 'borrowed' from wikipedia from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumen ... stake_only

eta: also see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crux_simplex

[Nathan]

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?

Robert, I would encourage you to read John Cook's Crucifixion in the Mediterranean World. It engages with Samuelsson's work directly, and shows that a number of his claims are likely wrong, including ones about the shape of the stauros and how the term should be translated.

The unfortunate reality is that Samuelsson either deliberately excluded evidence from his study that contradicted his conclusions, or he simply failed to take it into account. Either way, his book paints an incomplete picture.

[MrMacSon]

Funny thing is that Ben and I discussed it [the Epistle of Barnabas], and the papyrus says... IN!!!

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3149&start=70#p114423

Doh. I was going to read the whole thread but was finding so much info and it was late where I am so I just posted what I came up with to finish.

Ironically, it was a long discussion and Ben had posted on it at the top of the page I posted on, page 11, viewtopic.php?p=114547#p114547 - double Doh!

[mlinssen]

In his First Apology, 55 Justin refers to various objects as [supposedly] shaped like the cross of Christ [but notes humans as erect, like a stake, I presume, and cites σταυρός]: "The sea is not traversed except that trophy which is called a sail abide safe in the ship … And the human form differs from that of the irrational animals in nothing else than in its being erect and having the hands extended, and having on the face extending from the forehead what is called the nose, through which there is respiration for the living creature; and this shows no other form than that of the cross (σταυρός)."

Now that is it. Look at the papyrus, and you'll see at line 8 from the bottom: ⲥ⳨ⲟⲥ

https://www.freelyreceive.net/metalogos ... can/11.jpg

aha!

Now that does resemble, with immense effort, a human being who stands with his legs closed, his arms (not just hands LOL) outstretched to both sides, and with his face turned sideways - with the nose giving shape to the round in the top.
So, for the viewers at home, the human looks to the right, whereas he looks to the left of course himself

I wonder if "having the hands extended" might mean extended vertically thus -


Justus_Lipsius_Crux_Simplex_1629.jpg


Crucifixion on a crux simplex ad affixionem:
drawing in a 1629 reprint of De cruce of Justus Lipsius (1547-1606)

image 'borrowed' from wikipedia from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumen ... stake_only

eta: also see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crux_simplex

The funny thing is you can even extend your arms along your body, forming a perfect σταυρός!
Justin is rambling about the sail of a ship though, in those days they were of the traditional type I guess, a mast with a cross beam - and then the only thing missing is the head shaped thingy on top of the ⲥ⳨ⲟⲥ

I just invented the idea today, but I really do wonder whether all the fuss was caused in an attempt to disassociate Jesus being impaled up ye olde cavity - that would be not very uncommon, but in general being impaled doesn't make for a grand image of a saviour of any kind, the only way there is some dignity to it is in the picture you just showed

Ankh... it must mean something in Egypt. Why did Thomas replace the TAUR by the Ankh?

Some light reading for those interested in ancient Egyptian punishment:

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ah ... ient_Egypt