Abstract

This study investigates the philological aspects of how ancient Greek, Latin and Hebrew/Aramaic texts, including the New Testament, depict the practice of punishment by crucifixion. A survey of the ancient text material shows that there has been a too narrow view of the “crucifixion” terminology. The various terms are not simply used in the sense of “crucify” and “cross,” if by “crucifixion” one means the punishment that Jesus was subjected to according to the main Christian traditions. The terminology is used much more diversely. Almost none of it can be elucidated beyond verbs referring vaguely to some form(s) of suspension, and nouns referring to tools used in such suspension. As a result, most of the crucifixion accounts that scholars cite in the ancient literature have to be rejected, leaving only a few. The New Testament is not spared from this terminological ambiguity. The accounts of the death of Jesus are strikingly sparse. Their chief contribution is usage of the unclear terminology in question. Over-interpretation, and probably even pure imagination, have afflicted nearly every wordbook and dictionary that deals with the terms related to crucifixion as well as scholarly depictions of what happened on Calvary. The immense knowledge of the punishment of crucifixion in general, and the execution of Jesus in particular, cannot be supported by the studied texts.

From the Introduction

You know that after two days the Passover is coming, and the Son of Man will be handed over to be crucified (Matt 26.2 [NRSV]).

By these words the Matthean Jesus reveals what will occur within few days. A present-day reader, with the actual outcome in mind, imagines Jesus thorn crowned and nailed to a cross with outstretched arms, beneath a sign with the wording “King of the Jews,” between robbers and praying for the perpetrators. But what is the message of the text without knowledge of the actual outcome? A present day reader reads the text in the light of the well-known event on Calvary, but how would the text be read without Calvary? What vision would the expression εἰς τὸ σταυρωθῆναι trigger for a reader – or a listener – without knowledge of the execution of Jesus? In other words, what were the connotations of the concept presently labeled “crucifixion” before the execution of Jesus?

This prehistory of the punishment of crucifixion has been the subject of numerous studies. Text after text by ancient authors is presented. Studies on the passion of Jesus generally devote one or a few paragraphs on the prehistory of the punishment, where the authors refer to alleged crucifixion accounts in pre-Christian texts. These references – not least the terminology used in the references – are to be studied in the present investigation. The texts contain usually some of the familiar verbs ἀνασταυροῦν or ἀνασκολοπίζειν or the related nouns σταυρός and σκόλοψ in Greek texts, crux or patibulum in combination with a fitting verb in the Latin texts or the verb תלה in the Hebrew.

1 The Purpose of the Study

The purpose of the present investigation has resemblance to that which Martin Hengel expresses in his book Crucifixion: “The whole work is meant to be a preparation for a more comprehensive ‘theologia crucis’ of the New Testament.” In the end of the book, Hengel repeats his aim and adds some features to the result of his study.

I am well aware that this study remains essentially incomplete, for now at the end I should really begin all over again with a detailed exegesis of the evidence about the cross in the writings of Paul. As it is, I am breaking off where theological work proper ought to begin. The preceding chapters are no more than ‘historical preliminaries’ for a presentation of the theologia crucis in Paul (Hengel, Crucifixion, xii).

The present investigation is not aimed to continue down the theological path, as wished by Hengel. Instead, it will, as Heinz-Wolfgang Kuhn does,  add a second consideration to the “historical preliminaries” done by Hengel. This will be done both by adding some new aspects as well as further stressing some aspects Hengel deals with briefly. These aspects, the ones mentioned by Hengel and developed by Kuhn, as well as those added by the present investigation, deal with the problem of which texts describe the punishment of crucifixion and how they do that. Before the question wie es eigentlich gewesen one ought to ask wie es eigentlich geschrieben. The latter question is not sufficiently addressed by the scholars studied here.

The investigation will begin by asking which pre-Christian texts describe the punishment Jesus suffered – and foremost, in what way they do so philologically. When that is done, the focus will be moved, via the Old Testament and other ancient Jewish texts, to the New Testament. There, the texts describing the death of Jesus will be studied in the light of the older text.

Before the theological questions come into the question, before the historical conclusions could be made, and before the texts could be a partner in the hermeneutical process, the question what the texts in their present state depict ought to be asked. This is what the present investigation attempts to do.

Contents

CONTENTS 1

ABBREVIATIONS 7

1 Ancient Sources 7

2 Papyri and Non-Literary Sources 14

3 Early Jewish Literature 14

4 Modern Works 15

5 General 18

6 Signs 19

PREFACE 21

CHAPTER ONE – INTRODUCTION 25

1 The Purpose of the Study 26

2 The Scholarly Discussion 27

 2.1 Predecessors 27

2.2 Intermediate Studies 36

2.3 Main Contributors 39

2.4 Recent Studies 48

3 Basic Problems and Method 50

3.1 The Terminology 51

3.2 The Definition 53

3.3 The Basic Questions of the Investigation 56

3.4 Considerations of Theory 57

3.4.1 Philology 58

3.4.2 Semantics 59

4 Content of the Book 63

CHAPTER TWO – GREEK LITERATURE  65

1 The Archaic Era 66

1.1 Homer 66

1.2 Aesop 69

  1.3 Conclusion – The Archaic Era 69

2 Historians of the Classical Era 70

2.1 Herodotus 70

 2.1.1 Herodotus’ Use of  ἀνασταυροῦν 71

 2.1.2 Herodotus’ Use of  ἀνασκολοπίζειν 79

  2.1.3 Herodotus’ Use of Nail Terminology 84

2.1.4 Conclusion – Herodotus and Crucifixion 87

 2.2 Thucydides 92

2.3 Ctesias 94

2.4 Xenophon 97

2.5 Conclusion – Historians of the Classical Era 97

3 Philosophical Literature of the Classical Era 99

3.1 Plato 99

3.2 Aristotle 101

3.3 Conclusion – Philosophical Literature

            of the Classical Era102

4 Tragedy, Comedy and Orators of the Classical Era 102

4.1 Aeschylus 102

4.2 Sophocles 104

4.3 Euripides 105

4.4 Demosthenes 108

4.5 Conclusion – Tragedy, Comedy and Orators

            of the Classical Era109

5 Greek Historians of the Hellenistic Era 109

5.1 Polybius 109

5.1.1 Undefined Suspension Punishments in

                        Polybius109

5.1.2 Post-Mortem Suspension in Polybius 111

5.1.3 Ante-Mortem Suspension in Polybius 112

3.1.4 Conclusion – Polybius and Crucifixion 114

5.2 Diodorus Siculus 114

5.2.1 Undefined Suspensions in Diodorus Siculus 115

5.2.2 Post-Mortem Suspensions

                        in Diodorus Siculus117

5.2.3 Possible Impaling Accounts

                        in Diodorus Siculus119

5.2.4 Possible Ante-Mortem Suspensions

                        in Diodorus Siculus120

5.2.5 Suspension by Nailing in Diodorus Siculus 123

5.2.6 Conclusion – Diodorus Siculus

                        and Crucifixion125

5.3 Conclusion – Historians of the Hellenistic Era 127

6 Papyrus and Fragmentary Texts of the Hellenistic Era127

6.1 Papyrus Hellenica 127

6.2 Alexis 128

6.3 Conclusion – Papyrus and Fragmentary Texts

                    of the Hellenistic Era129

7 Historians of the Roman Era 129

7.1 Strabo 129

7.1.1 Suspension Texts in Strabo 129

7.1.2 Conclusion – Strabo and Crucifixion 133

7.2 Dionysius of Halicarnassus 133

7.3 Flavius Josephus 135

7.3.1 Texts Without Indications of

                        the Suspension Form136

7.3.2 Texts With Indications of

                        the Suspension Form142

7.3.3 Conclusion – Josephus and Crucifixion 153

7.4 Plutarch 156

7.4.1 Undefined Suspensions in Plutarch 156

7.4.2 Suspension Accounts With

                        Additional Information159

7.4.3 Nailing Accounts in Plutarch 164

7.4.4 Plutarch’s Use of σταυρός 167

7.4.5 Conclusion – Plutarch and Crucifixion 171

7.5 Appian 172

7.5.1 Appian’s Use of σταυροῦν and σταυρός 173

7.5.2 Appian’s Use of κρεμαννύναι 174

7.5.3 Conclusions – Appian and Crucifixion 178

7.6 Conclusion – Historians of the Roman Era 179

8 Philosophical and Poetical Authors of the Roman Era 180

8.1 Philo Judaeus 180

8.1.1 Undefined Suspensions in Philo 180

8.1.2 Suspensions by Nailing in Philo 185

8.1.3 Ante-Mortem Suspensions in Philo 186

8.1.4 Conclusion – Philo and Crucifixion 188

8.2 Chariton 189

8.2.1 The Suspension of Theron 189

8.2.2 The Suspension of Chaereas

                        and His Cellmates190

8.2.3 A Recapitulation of the Suspensions 191

8.2.4 Chariton’s Use of σταυρός 192

8.2.5 Conclusion – Chariton and Crucifixion 194

8.3 Conclusion – Philosophical and Poetical Literature

                        of the Roman Era194

9 Conclusion – The Greek Literature 195

9.1 The Terminology 195

9.1.1 The Verbs 195

9.1.2 The Nouns 198

9.1.3 The Terminological Problem 200

9.2 The Punishment  200

CHAPTER THREE – LATIN LITERATURE205

1 Historians 206

1.1 Gaius Iulius Caesar 206

1.2 Gaius Sallustius Crispus 207

1.3 Titus Livius 208

1.3.1 The Case Against Horatius 208

1.3.2 Livy’s Use of crux 211

1.3.3 Conclusion – Livy 214

1.4 Valerius Maximus 214

  1.4.1 Conclusion – Valerius Maximus 217

1.5 Cornelius Tacitus  217

1.5.1 Tacitus’ Use of Assumed Crucifixion

                        Terminology217

1.5.2 Conclusion – Tacitus 223

1.6 Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus 223

1.6.1 Suetonius Use of crux and

                        Accompanying Verbs223

1.6.2 The Ancient Custom 226

1.6.3 Conclusion – Suetonius 226

1.7 Clodius Licinius  227

2 Playwrights 228

2.1 Titus Maccius Plautus 228

2.1.1 Conclusion – Plautus 232

2.2 Publius Terentius Afer 233

3 Rhetorical Texts 233

3.1 Marcus Tullius Cicero 233

3.1.1 Cicero’s Oration Against Gaius Verres 234

3.1.2 Cicero’s Defense of Rabirius 240

3.1.3 Conclusion – Cicero 242

3.2 Lucius Annaeus Seneca (the Elder) 242

3.3 Lucius Annaeus Seneca (the Younger) 244

3.3.1 Conclusion – Seneca the Younger 250

3.4 Gaius Plinius Secundus 251

3.5 Marcus Fabius Quintilianus 253

3.6 Quintus Curtius Rufus 254

4 Poetry 255

4.1 Gaius Valerius Catullus 255

4.2 Quintus Horatius Flaccus 256

4.3 Publius Ovidius Naso 256

4.4 Marcus Valerius Martialis 257

4.5 Decimus Iunius Iuvenalis 258

5 Inscription259

6 Conclusion – The Latin Literature 262

6.1 The Terminology 262

6.2 The Punishment 265

CHAPTER FOUR – THE OLD TESTAMENT AND

RELATED LITERATURE 269

1The Old Testament 271

1.1 Genesis 271

1.2 Numeri 274

1.3 Deuteronomy 277

1.4 Joshua 278

1.5 The Books of Samuel 280

1.6 Ezra 284

1.7 Esther 286

1.8 Lamentation 289

2 The Deuterocanonical Texts 291

3 The Dead Sea Scrolls 291

4 The Apocryphal Old Testament 295

5 Conclusion – Old Testament and Related Literature 296

5.1 The Terminology 296

5.2 The Punishment 299

CHAPTER FIVE – THE EXECUTION OF JESUS 301

1 The Gospels 302

1.1 Jesus Foretells His Passion 302

1.2 To Carry One’s Own Cross 305

1.3 A People’s Call for Execution  307

1.4 The Road to Golgotha  309

1.5 The Execution 312

1.6 The Criminals  314

1.7 The Mocking of Jesus  315

1.8 The Death of Jesus  316

1.9 The Aftermaths of the Death of Jesus 318

2 Acts 320

3 The Epistles Attributed to Paul 321

4 The Epistles Not Attributed To Paul 325

5 Revelation 326

6 Conclusion – The Execution of Jesus 327

CHAPTER SIX – DISCUSSION WITH REFERENCE

LITERATURE AND SCHOLARS 331

1 Discussion One – The Definition of Crucifixion 331

1.1 An Execution 332

1.2 In the Strict Sense, an Execution 333

1.3 Not Necessarily an Execution 335

1.4 Uncertainty, but Nevertheless a Crucifixion 336

1.5 A Better Way: A Suspension Among Others 338

1.6 Conclusion – The Definition of Crucifixion 342

2 Discussion Two – The Terminology of Crucifixion 342

2.1 The Greek Terminology 343

2.1.1 ἀνασταυροῦν and ἀνασκολοπίζειν 343

2.1.2 σταυροῦν 346

2.1.3 σταυρὀς 349

2.1.4κρεμαννύναι 352

2.2 The Latin Terminology 353

2.3 The Hebrew-Aramaic Terminology 354

2.4 Conclusion – The Terminology of Crucifixion 356

2.4.1 Verbs of the σταυρ-Stem 356

2.4.2 ἀνασκολοπίζειν 357

2.4.3 σταυρός 358

2.4.4 κρεμαννύναι 359

2.4.5 crux 360

2.4.6 patibulum 360

2.4.7 The Hebrew-Aramaic Terminology 361

2.4.8 The Terminology of Crucifixion 361

3 Discussion Three – The Depiction of Crucifixion 362

3.1 The Scholarly Contributions 362

3.2 Evaluation of the Scholarly Contributions 369

3.3 A Depiction of Crucifixion 372

4 Test Case I – The Archaeological Challenge 373

5 Test Case II – Challenging the Basic Theory 374

CHAPTER SEVEN – ANSWERS TO THE BASIC

QUESTIONS OF THE INVESTIGATION 379

BIBLIOGRAPHY 383

1 Primary Sources (Texts and Translations) 383

2 Reference Works 396

3 Secondary Literature 400

4 Internet 413

The third dissertation edition has been sold out (I have though a few personal copies left of this edition for reviewers). The manuscript has now been revised in accordance with the suggestions given by the opponent, the board at the public defense, and by the publisher.

    The book was published in August 2011 by Mohr Siebeck, and presented at the SNTS Meeting in New York. However, since there is an immense interest in the book, I will offer some information of what the dissertation edition contains here. You will find the abstract, then the two first pages of the introduction which offer an indication of what the book is about (and not least what the book is not about) and lastly the contents.