[B-Greek] Mk. 15:24
Rolf Furuli
furuli at online.no
Thu Mar 10 11:56:54 EST 2005
Dear Arie,
One element that often is neglected in discussions of the exact reference of
STAUROS in the NT, is *vision*. As to the semantic range of the substantive
(and the corresponding verb), it is beyond dispute that the exact form of
the piece(s) of wood referred to by it is not given. This means that the
exact form of the tree on
which Jesus was fastened, could not be known before viewers could see it.
In Matthew 20:19 Jesus uses the Greek verb STAUROW in connection whith what
would happen to him in the future. Jesus evidently spoke both Hebrew and
Aramaic (probably Hebrew in his everyday life), and neither of these
languages has any word which denotes a cross (a pole with a crossbar). Even
the use the Greek verb STAUROW by Jesus would make no difference - no exact
form could be construed by the use of that word alone. From a linguistic and
translational point of view, therefore, to use the modern English "crucify"
in this text would be an anachronism. The same is true in Matthew 23:34;
26:2; 27:22, 23, 26, 31; Mark 13:13, 14, 15, 20; Luke 23:21, 23; 24:7; 19:6,
10, 15, 16. In all these passages the form of the STAUROS was unknown, and
the listeners could only have a generic comprehension.
After Jesus was fastened to the STAUROS its shape was known, but would that
mean that the translation of Mattew 27:25, 38; 28:5; Mark 15:24, 25,
27;16:6; Luke 24:20; John 19:18, 20, 23, 41 should be different from the
passages mentioned above, because the words of these verses were uttered
after the erection of the STAUROS? That would be strange indeed, because
the semantic range of the verb (and the substantive) would be exctly the
same: The words had a generic meaning referring to objects of tree, and
translators should always differentiate between sign, meaning and reference
(Ogden`s triangle). An additionl problem with "crucify" as a rendering is
that while the writers of the NT books knew the shape of the STAUROS, this
is nowhere communicated to us. Thus, I would argue that the words "cross"
and "crucify" in modern translations are anachronistic throughout the whole
NT; the later Christian use of them is read into the text. So, the use of
"cross" and "crucify" before the death of Jesus is anachronistic because the
shape of the STAUROS was unknown, and the use of these words in contexts
referring to events after the death of Jesus is anachronistic because the
knowledge of the exact shape is not communicated to modern Bible
translators.
The only looser by the use of the more general words "pole; stake; tree" is
tradition, but tradition has many ugly faces, and to curtail tradition
certainly is an advantage for us.
Best regards
Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo
----- Original Message -----
From: "A. Dirkzwager" <dirkzwager at pandora.be>
To: "Julia Rossner" <julia_rossner at yahoo.com>; "Jeffrey B. Gibson"
<jgibson000 at comcast.net>
Cc: "Biblical Greek" <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2005 8:25 AM
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Mk. 15:24
> Concerning FERW:
> It is possible to use the word in the meaning "to led". See John 21: 18
> and
> the Gospel of "Peter" 4. 10 KAI HNEGKON DUO KAKOURGOUS KAI ESTAURWSAN ANA
> MESON AUTWN TON KURION.
> The last sentence proves in my opinion that STAUROW in connection with the
> death of Jesus should not mean anything else than to crucify.
> If not, you should admit that STAUROW in that connection was originally
> "to
> put up stakes, posts or slats or a palisade around him" and afterwards in
> the whole christian tradition "to crucify".
>
> The rest will be for this evening.
>
> Arie
>
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list