other than stauros

David Moore asked:

>>  Does your comment above mean that you don't agree with my observations 
>> on the Greek of the passage in question?

Richard Russell <richruss@world.std.com> answered:

>Yes.  It changes the task of reading if the Pastorals have a different 
>composer than the "authentic" pauline material, and if that composer(s) 
>was working after "Paul" and knew at least some of "Paul": this raises 
>questions of how to read inter-textually, inter-authorially, inter-
>generationally, even.

David Moore's response:

	I asked a question about the use of a specific Greek word in a specific
passage.  You gave an answer that is true in terms of generalities.

	In this specific case (2 Tim. 4:6), whether one accepts or rejects Pauline
authorship of the Pastorals changes very little (if at all) the
interpretation of _spendomai_.  In either case, the word is in reference to
Paul's impending execution which Eusebius says was by beheading.  If the
letter were written after the fact (a position to which I do not subscribe),
then even more surely we could understand it as a metaphor for what,
according to the tradition, happened to Paul.

	The point of my original post on this was that references to the execution
of those who are Romans seem to be in terms of beheading (2 Tim. 4:16; Rom.
16:4) rather than crucifixion which was reserved mainly for slaves,
non-Romans and criminals of low standing. Peter, who, according to Eusebius,
was crucified, comes under the non-Roman category as does the Lord Himself.
 Those who were judged and executed by the Jews could be stoned as was
Stephen and, according to Josephus, James the Lord's brother.

	Higher criticism can be helpful.  In some matters of background and of
interpretation, it is necessary.  Some of us, however, mistrust that it is
sometimes used to parry the clear message of the Scritptures and to avoid
coming to terms with what the text obviously says.

David L. Moore