Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

The tau-rho in the Gospel of Thomas.



55. Jesus said, "Whoever does not hate father and mother cannot be my disciple, and whoever does not hate brothers and sisters, and carry the cross as I do, will not be worthy of me."

http://gnosis.org/naghamm/gosthom.html
The Gospel of Thomas

http://www.metalog.org/files/th_interlin/Th.53-57.gif

The Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of John pre-Synoptics???

I started this thread with the premise that the tau-rho symbol found in early manuscripts of the gospel of John was a smoking gun for the JC historicists. ie. that symbol is found on coins of Herod the Great. Herod being responsible for the execution of the last King and High Priest of the Jews, Antigonus II, in 37 b.c. Herod sending Antigonus to Antioch where he was executed, beheaded by Marc Antony. Whatever was the purpose of Herod using this symbol - the early christians used it to represent the cross or crucifixion words in their gJohn manuscript. The only crucifixion, the only hanging on a cross and scourging of a King of the Jews was Antigonus.

Yes, Josephus does not mention this - but Cassius Dio does:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antigonus_II_Mattathias

Josephus states that Marc Antony beheaded Antigonus (Antiquities, XV 1:2 (8-9). Roman historian Dio Cassius says he was crucified. Cassius Dio's Roman History records: "These people [the Jews] Antony entrusted to a certain Herod to govern; but Antigonus he bound to a cross and scourged, a punishment no other king had suffered at the hands of the Romans, and so slew him."[4] In his Life of Antony, Plutarch claims that Antony had Antigonus beheaded, "the first example of that punishment being inflicted on a king."[5]

One solution to this 'problem' is that Josephus (for whatever reason) chose only to mention the beheading of Antigonus. Interestingly, however, is that there was a gap of a few months between the capture of Jerusalem and the execution of Antigonus. As a prisoner of Rome the probability that Antigonus was tortured while hung on a cross is considerable. Thus, the crucifixion, the suspending of Antigonus upon a cross for torture happened a few months prior to his execution - an execution of a King that probably required Marc Antony to be in Antioch. Plutarch recording only the final end of Antigonus.

The chronology of Herod’s conquest of Jerusalem has been studied in detail by numerous scholars.........all these scholars, as others, agree that the conquest was in fact completed in July 37.

<snip>

....for Josephus did not count Herod’s years from the conquest of Jerusalem, although Schurer and numerous others say he did. ..................Josephus in fact counts the thirty-four years from the execution of Mattathias Antigonus. But Antigonus was executed in Antioch by Mark Anthony.........and as shown by the later’s movements, that occurred in the late autumn of 37, or perhaps early in 36. Anthony was still in Tarentum in September-October 37. Thus, there is nothing here to contradict the usage of an autumn 37 era. Apparently, Josephus, or already Herod, was only willing to count the new king’s regnal years after Antigonus was completely removed.

Daniel R Schwartz: Studies in the Jewish Background of Christianity. Page 176/177.

Josephus does record, at the siege of Jerusalem in 70 c.e., that he had a friend taken down from a cross and that this friend survived. That this was the fate of Antigonus after the siege of Jerusalem in 37 b.c. is more likely than not.

Greg Doudna' interpretation of the Wicked Priest, from some DSS material, is also significant in that he identified Antigonus as the one hung alive on a cross.

Doudna: Antigonus: Wicked Priest hung up alive on a cross

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=513

Thus, the history of Antigonus, as being the historical King of the Jews that was executed by Rome, is relevant to the gospel story. As such the tau-rho staurogram is a smoking gun for the JC historicists.

That said, as this thread proceeded, it has become apparent to me that the tau-rho is not only a smoking gun for the JC historicists - it is also a smoking gun for the position of some mythicists. If, as now seems evident re the scholarship of Larry Hurtado, this symbol was the earliest christian symbol, then.....the manuscripts in which this symbol is found, the gospel of John, and the gospel of Thomas, and the gospel of Luke (photos in previous posts, contain material that is earlier than the Pauline epistles. P45, P66 and P75. (The Matthew tau-rho photo not available....)

Dating manuscripts, as I have always maintained, does not date the story those manuscripts contain. Dating the story requires that the story itself be the center of investigation. The manuscripts reveal that the story is a developing story. Consequently, if the tau-rho symbol is the earliest christian symbol - then the manuscripts containing that symbol are reflecting an early source for that story. A source that is earlier than the Pauline epistles.

Thus, the tau-rho symbol is a smoking gun not only for the JC historicists but also for those mythicists that uphold the premise that the gospel figure of JC is a historicizing of the Pauline Christ figure. The tau-rho symbol relates to an early christian story that does not depend upon the Pauline epistles for it's origin.

Hi all

I have, I believe, found the image of the p46 fragment that L. Hurtado says contains a tau-rho representing text from Matthew 26.2. It is here http://csntm.org/manuscript/zoomify/GA_P45?page=0. However, with my poor eyes I am unable to see it. Can someone please direct me to it, either here or on any other internet page. Many thanks.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

DCHindley wrote:I think it is interesting that Robert F. Hull, in The Story of the New Testament Text (2010) can confidently say, "Although the chi-rho (☧) and other Christograms appear to be adaptations of pre-Christian symbols found in secular inscriptions and literature (McNamee 1981), the tau-rho is uniquely Christian; moreover, in its earliest attested usages, it appears only within abbreviated forms for words, never as a freestanding device (as it later became)" (citing Hurtado, 2006),
DCH

I just came across Larry Hurtado' review of this book:

In a section of this chapter on “Manuscripts as Artifacts,” Hull reviews how recent work
has opened up “windows into the world of early Christianity” (179). The early Christian
preference for the codex, the scribal practice called “nomina sacra,” the “staurogram” (the
fascinating device formed by the combination of the Greek tau and rho), and a number of
other physical features of early New Testament manuscripts make these items artifacts of
early Christian reading and transmission of their sacred texts. One correction: the tau-rho
device is not “uniquely Christian” (185) but is a pre-Christian device adopted by
Christians and used in a distinctive manner, correctly described by Hull as likely a
pictographic reference to the crucified Jesus.

http://www.bookreviews.org/pdf/7960_8703.pdf

Hi maryhelena,

Cassius Dio uses the term ἐμαστίγωσε σταυρῷ προσδήσας. It really is anachronistic to translate stavro as cross here. The word is used hundreds of times before the Third century and overwhelming it is used to mean some kind of stake or pole or some kind of suspension instrument made out of wood. In some hundred or more accounts of the word stavros in an execution, the shape of the stavros is never (or almost never) described as a cross because the stavros could be any shape. Even the NT gospels never describe the shape of the stavros. The point wasn't the shape, but that it was a brutal punishment.
The word Prodesas (bound) was used by Plutarch to describe another torture.

Duris the Samian makes a tragical drama out of these events, charging the Athenians and Pericles with a great deal of cruelty, which neither Thucydides, nor Ephorus, nor Aristotle have given any relation of, and probably with little regard to truth; how, for example, he brought the captains and soldiers of the alleys into the market-place at Miletus, and there having bound them fast to boards for ten days, then, when they were already all but half dead, gave order to have them killed by beating out their brains with clubs, and their dead bodies to be flung out into the open streets and fields, unburied. Duris however, who, even where he has no private feeling concerned, is not wont to keep his narratives within the limits of truth, is the more likely upon this occasion to have exaggerated the calamities which befell his country, to create odium against the Athenians.

Plutarch's mention of Antigonus is quite in passing as an example of Mark Anthony's abuse of authority -- "For although he had invested several private persons in great governments and kingdoms, and bereaved many kings of theirs, as Antigonus of Judaea, whose head he caused to be struck off (the first example of that punishment being inflicted on a king), yet nothing stung the Romans like the shame of these honours paid to Cleopatra." In other words, the Romans didn't care about his using his power to make or break Kings, but only that he honored Cleopatra.

It is hard to believe that Plutarch and Josephus would ignore the torture of Antigonus if he knew about it and just use the unprecedented beheading of a king. They relish this kind of thing in their writing.

It is also too coincidental that whipping and beheading were both done to a king for the first time here. My guess would be that Dio Cassius wanted to show the unprecedented cruelty that Anthony had done. Anthony was the subject of his writing here. However, Dio Cassius probably knew that beheading an enemy king was not unrepresented as Plutarch and Josephus thought. Ventidus, proconsul of Syria had cut off the head of Pacorus, the son of a Parthian king the year before in 38 B.C.E. Anthony ordered Cicero's head cut off too, and Antigonus had cut off the head of Herod's brother. To emphasize the cruelty of Anthony, Cassius may have invented the unnecessary whipping that went before the common place beheading. By inventing this detail, he at least got the spirit of Josephus and Plutarch right.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

maryhelena wrote:I started this thread with the premise that the tau-rho symbol found in early manuscripts of the gospel of John was a smoking gun for the JC historicists. ie. that symbol is found on coins of Herod the Great. Herod being responsible for the execution of the last King and High Priest of the Jews, Antigonus II, in 37 b.c. Herod sending Antigonus to Antioch where he was executed, beheaded by Marc Antony. Whatever was the purpose of Herod using this symbol - the early christians used it to represent the cross or crucifixion words in their gJohn manuscript. The only crucifixion, the only hanging on a cross and scourging of a King of the Jews was Antigonus.

Yes, Josephus does not mention this - but Cassius Dio does:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antigonus_II_Mattathias

Josephus states that Marc Antony beheaded Antigonus (Antiquities, XV 1:2 (8-9). Roman historian Dio Cassius says he was crucified. Cassius Dio's Roman History records: "These people [the Jews] Antony entrusted to a certain Herod to govern; but Antigonus he bound to a cross and scourged, a punishment no other king had suffered at the hands of the Romans, and so slew him."[4] In his Life of Antony, Plutarch claims that Antony had Antigonus beheaded, "the first example of that punishment being inflicted on a king."[5]

One solution to this 'problem' is that Josephus (for whatever reason) chose only to mention the beheading of Antigonus. Interestingly, however, is that there was a gap of a few months between the capture of Jerusalem and the execution of Antigonus. As a prisoner of Rome the probability that Antigonus was tortured while hung on a cross is considerable. Thus, the crucifixion, the suspending of Antigonus upon a cross for torture happened a few months prior to his execution - an execution of a King that probably required Marc Antony to be in Antioch. Plutarch recording only the final end of Antigonus.

The chronology of Herod’s conquest of Jerusalem has been studied in detail by numerous scholars.........all these scholars, as others, agree that the conquest was in fact completed in July 37.

<snip>

....for Josephus did not count Herod’s years from the conquest of Jerusalem, although Schurer and numerous others say he did. ..................Josephus in fact counts the thirty-four years from the execution of Mattathias Antigonus. But Antigonus was executed in Antioch by Mark Anthony.........and as shown by the later’s movements, that occurred in the late autumn of 37, or perhaps early in 36. Anthony was still in Tarentum in September-October 37. Thus, there is nothing here to contradict the usage of an autumn 37 era. Apparently, Josephus, or already Herod, was only willing to count the new king’s regnal years after Antigonus was completely removed.

Daniel R Schwartz: Studies in the Jewish Background of Christianity. Page 176/177.

Josephus does record, at the siege of Jerusalem in 70 c.e., that he had a friend taken down from a cross and that this friend survived. That this was the fate of Antigonus after the siege of Jerusalem in 37 b.c. is more likely than not.

Greg Doudna' interpretation of the Wicked Priest, from some DSS material, is also significant in that he identified Antigonus as the one hung alive on a cross.

Doudna: Antigonus: Wicked Priest hung up alive on a cross

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=513

Thus, the history of Antigonus, as being the historical King of the Jews that was executed by Rome, is relevant to the gospel story. As such the tau-rho staurogram is a smoking gun for the JC historicists.

That said, as this thread proceeded, it has become apparent to me that the tau-rho is not only a smoking gun for the JC historicists - it is also a smoking gun for the position of some mythicists. If, as now seems evident re the scholarship of Larry Hurtado, this symbol was the earliest christian symbol, then.....the manuscripts in which this symbol is found, the gospel of John, and the gospel of Thomas, and the gospel of Luke (photos in previous posts, contain material that is earlier than the Pauline epistles. P45, P66 and P75. (The Matthew tau-rho photo not available....)

Dating manuscripts, as I have always maintained, does not date the story those manuscripts contain. Dating the story requires that the story itself be the center of investigation. The manuscripts reveal that the story is a developing story. Consequently, if the tau-rho symbol is the earliest christian symbol - then the manuscripts containing that symbol are reflecting an early source for that story. A source that is earlier than the Pauline epistles.

Thus, the tau-rho symbol is a smoking gun not only for the JC historicists but also for those mythicists that uphold the premise that the gospel figure of JC is a historicizing of the Pauline Christ figure. The tau-rho symbol relates to an early christian story that does not depend upon the Pauline epistles for it's origin.

PhilosopherJay wrote:Hi maryhelena,

Cassius Dio uses the term ἐμαστίγωσε σταυρῷ προσδήσας. It really is anachronistic to translate stavro as cross here.

I have no argument with the word 'cross'. Stake, pole - it's an instrument of suspension that is relevant not the word that is used to denote any specific type of suspension instrument used.

The word is used hundreds of times before the Third century and overwhelming it is used to mean some kind of stake or pole or some kind of suspension instrument made out of wood. In some hundred or more accounts of the word stavros in an execution, the shape of the stavros is never (or almost never) described as a cross because the stavros could be any shape. Even the NT gospels never describe the shape of the stavros. The point wasn't the shape, but that it was a brutal punishment.

Agreed.

The word Prodesas (bound) was used by Plutarch to describe another torture.

Duris the Samian makes a tragical drama out of these events, charging the Athenians and Pericles with a great deal of cruelty, which neither Thucydides, nor Ephorus, nor Aristotle have given any relation of, and probably with little regard to truth; how, for example, he brought the captains and soldiers of the alleys into the market-place at Miletus, and there having bound them fast to boards for ten days, then, when they were already all but half dead, gave order to have them killed by beating out their brains with clubs, and their dead bodies to be flung out into the open streets and fields, unburied. Duris however, who, even where he has no private feeling concerned, is not wont to keep his narratives within the limits of truth, is the more likely upon this occasion to have exaggerated the calamities which befell his country, to create odium against the Athenians.

Plutarch's mention of Antigonus is quite in passing as an example of Mark Anthony's abuse of authority -- "For although he had invested several private persons in great governments and kingdoms, and bereaved many kings of theirs, as Antigonus of Judaea, whose head he caused to be struck off (the first example of that punishment being inflicted on a king), yet nothing stung the Romans like the shame of these honours paid to Cleopatra." In other words, the Romans didn't care about his using his power to make or break Kings, but only that he honored Cleopatra.

It is hard to believe that Plutarch and Josephus would ignore the torture of Antigonus if he knew about it and just use the unprecedented beheading of a king. They relish this kind of thing in their writing.

Re Josephus on not mentioning Antigonus being hung alive on a cross/stake/pole/suspension - yes, it's interesting that he did not do so. Perhaps it's a bit like 'the dog that did not bark in the night'....i.e. rather than supposing Josephus did not detail the suspension of Antigonus on a cross/stake/pole because no such thing happened to Antigonus - there could well be a motive for his silence.

It is also too coincidental that whipping and beheading were both done to a king for the first time here. My guess would be that Dio Cassius wanted to show the unprecedented cruelty that Anthony had done. Anthony was the subject of his writing here. However, Dio Cassius probably knew that beheading an enemy king was not unrepresented as Plutarch and Josephus thought. Ventidus, proconsul of Syria had cut off the head of Pacorus, the son of a Parthian king the year before in 38 B.C.E. Anthony ordered Cicero's head cut off too, and Antigonus had cut off the head of Herod's brother. To emphasize the cruelty of Anthony, Cassius may have invented the unnecessary whipping that went before the common place beheading. By inventing this detail, he at least got the spirit of Josephus and Plutarch right.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Perhaps, but Jay, perhaps not.

It is interesting that the beheading is spoken of here as though it had never before happened that Rome had done such a thing to a King.

(Josephus does mention the beheading (in 49 b.c) also at Antioch, of Alexander, who would have, at that time, considered himself the legitimate heir to his father, Aristobulus II. - being the elder brother of Antigonus)

I'm wondering if the point about "the first example of that punishment being inflicted on a king" is not related to the beheading but to what would have been the case if Antigonus had been hung alive on that cross/stake/pole/suspension instrument. i.e. its the fact that such a suspension was not a postmortem suspension but that the victim, Antigonus in this case, was hung up alive. That it was this, a Jewish King, or any King, hung up alive, that was the 'it never happened before' argument of the sources. Whereas beheading was 'normal', suspending alive a King on a cross/stake/pole was not.

On the Nahum Pesher of the DSS.

GUNNAR SAMUELSSON
Crucifixion in Antiquity


The mention of a victim being suspended alive on wood is evident. The
text echoes some apparently known event in the past (Alexander Jannaeus'
execution of the eight hundred Pharisees is commonly suggested).127
The text, labeled as a crucifixion account by Hengel, Kuhn and Chapman,
1 2 8 describes some kind of an ante-mortem suspension - but does not
reveal which kind. The event is mentionable by the author of the Pesher
since it is a violation of the Jewish tradition in Deuteronomy 21.22-23 - a
/?0s£-mortem suspension. The offense was that the wicked man suspended
men, in this case alive, not that he did it in a particular way (e.g., nailed
them with outstretched limbs on a cross-shaped execution tool). The reason
why the author of the Pesher stresses that they were alive while suspended
could be, as has been seen earlier, that the norm was a postmortem
suspension (coherent with Deut 21.22-23).

GUNNAR SAMUELSSON seems to have made quite a name for himself - and caused some disquite among some christians regarding JC probably not hung up on the standard christian cross. His webpage gives many media links regarding his book.

http://www.exegetics.org/Media.html


I've not read Samuelsson' book - just searched for a few words....

However, this is interesting:

Gospels don't say Jesus was crucified, scholar claims

Samuelson wants to be very clear about what he is saying and what he is not saying.

Most importantly, he says, he is not claiming Jesus was not crucified - only that the Gospels do not say he was.


http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/07/0 ... ar-claims/

Interesting - so....the gospel JC suspended on a cross/stake/pole, tortured, scourged - did not die on that instrument of suspension - as that would defeat the purpose of such an instrument. The purpose being torture not execution of a live body. The crucifixion of dead bodies being to deny a normal burial - leaving the body to be ravished by the carrion birds. If this is so , then no wonder christians would be up in arms - but it might well throw some light on the fate of Antigonus...

Must read some more of this book - thanks PhilospherJay for mentioning it...

As of now: Suspension = bodies dead or alive. However, Deut 21.22-23."When someone is convicted of a crime punishable by death and is executed, and you hang him on a tree, his corpse must not remain all night upon the tree; you shall bury him that same day, for anyone hung on a tree is under God’s curse. You must not defile the land that the Lord your God is giving you for possession". A postmortem suspension for a short while - thus 'saving' the body from the carrion birds and not defiling the land. Living bodies tortured.

Crucifixion = suspended dead bodies denied burial and left for food for the carrion birds. The final humiliation. The final humiliation of a crucifixion that Antigonus did not undergo.

I wonder what Ehrman, with his no tomb no decent burial argument, would make of all this...i.e. re Samuelson, it looks to be that 'crucifixion' relates to the suspension of dead bodies that were to be denied a normal burial and left to the carrion birds.

-------------------

Bible doesn't say Jesus was crucified, scholar claims

He found very little evidence of crucifixion as a method of execution, though he did find corpses being suspended, people being hanged from trees, and more gruesome methods of execution such as impaling people by the belly or rectum.

The same Greek word was used to refer to all the different practices, he found.

That's what led him to doubt that the Gospels specify that Jesus was crucified.

At the time they were written, "there is no word in Greek, Latin, Aramaic or Hebrew that means crucifixion in the sense that we think of it," he says.

It's only after the death of Jesus - and because of the death of Jesus - that the Greek word "stauroun" comes specifically to mean executing a person on the cross, he argues.

http://www.thedominican.net/2010/07/bib ... t-say.html

[my bolding]

FWIW there is a quite good example of a staurogram in P66 for John 19:31 See John 19.29-33

Andrew Criddle

Thanks Andrew, its good to get all these staurogram, tau-rho, symbols in on place. Pity about the one in Matthew 26.2 - that seems to be illusive...

andrewcriddle wrote:FWIW there is a quite good example of a staurogram in P66 for John 19:31 See John 19.29-33

Andrew Criddle

PhilosopherJay wrote:Hi all

I have, I believe, found the image of the p46 fragment that L. Hurtado says contains a tau-rho representing text from Matthew 26.2. It is here http://csntm.org/manuscript/zoomify/GA_P45?page=0. However, with my poor eyes I am unable to see it. Can someone please direct me to it, either here or on any other internet page. Many thanks.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Hi Jay

The page with this passage is not part of the chester beatty collection. Almost all of P45 is held in the chester beatty collection but this page is held at Vienna (Pap. G. 31974 vienna). I doubt if it is available on-line.

Andrew Criddle

Hi andrewcriddle,

Thanks so much for this.

Given that p45 is only one of three manuscripts that Hurtado cites as evidence for his theory of the Tau-Rho being an earlier symbol for the crucifixion and Christ, it is amazing that nobody has put an image of it online. Hurtado came out with the theory in 2006 and it is now 2014. The fragment p45 allegedly contained only a single instance of the Tau-Rho.Well, this leaves us with only two manuscripts to examine to check Hurtado's conclusions.

In the manuscript p75, Hurtado finds it in only three out of nine cases of the use of a stavros derived word. This is already strange that the symbol is used so inconsistently within a manuscript. This mixing of full spelling, abbreviated spelling and use of symbol to mean the same thing is hard to understand. For example consider this.

I like to smile. Do you like to sm? When one smiles the whole day brightens. We should more. When we sm the whole world smiles. Nobody likes to sm more than me. When you're the world seems a better place. Please s e

Hurtado would have us believe that a manuscript writer used this mixed style of writing full words, abbreviations and symbols to mean the same range of words. He doesn't explain why the writer would do such a thing.

Of course this wouldn't matter much if his First manuscript p66 was a solid case of consistent use of Tau-Rho as a stand-in for Stavros based words. Unfortunately the fragments he uses, are not in the "well preserved" sections of p66, but in the section in "very fragmentary conditions". Because they are decontextualized, the mis/interpretation of fragments is always problematic.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

andrewcriddle wrote:

PhilosopherJay wrote:Hi all

I have, I believe, found the image of the p46 fragment that L. Hurtado says contains a tau-rho representing text from Matthew 26.2. It is here http://csntm.org/manuscript/zoomify/GA_P45?page=0. However, with my poor eyes I am unable to see it. Can someone please direct me to it, either here or on any other internet page. Many thanks.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Hi Jay

The page with this passage is not part of the chester beatty collection. Almost all of P45 is held in the chester beatty collection but this page is held at Vienna (Pap. G. 31974 vienna). I doubt if it is available on-line.

Andrew Criddle