Crucified or Impaled?
Some topics are addressed by scholars, then politely left out to dry. Why? Can "believers" have any confidence in what is transmitted to them as Truth, when details right and left get waffled.
Example. The method of The Execution. Iesu, Jew, Jerusalem, years ago.
Matthew Mark Luke and John Bless the Bed that I Lie On. Lie? Lie? Is somebody lie-ing here by sounding so certain about how The Execution take place. We are talking Iesu, Jew, killed on Golgotha many years ago. We look at the gospel accounts. You can, too. If there is ambiguity, why do we fear it. Why not accept the ambiguity and move on.
a. Crucifixion, hammer nails in outstretched hands, arms out on a cross beam whether or not in a T or an upright beam with a crossbeam some feet below, the traditional Roman Cross. Comparatively dignified. Fits all the stories passed down to us, carrying the "cross" etc.
b. Impalement, stake through from between and below, missing major organs on the way (experts know how), so death is prolonged. No dignity. Does not fit the stories passed down to us. Is that the end of it?
If there is a question, why not live with it, lay it out, acknowledge that all is not Certain in this world or our interpretation of the next, in anything. Take somebody's word for it? "Inspiration" as the reason? Go ahead. We are looking further.
Site: parallel translations from the Greek, there using the phonetic instead of the Greek fonts that most of us do not have. See Greek New Testament dot com, at ://www.greeknewtestament.com/B40C027.htm/. Start at Matthew 27:22. That to do with Iesu.
The exclamation point is ours. But STAURWQHTW ???
a. Look that up. STAURWQHTW
b. Comparative translations. Go at the Greek New Testament site for the translation of the word. There is nothing about a cross, "crucifigatur" until Jerome translated the Greek into his Latin, and came up with cruficigatur for STAURWQHTW.
Everybody follows suit. Crucified, says Jerome. Crucified it is.
But was Jerome's version authorized,and what did he mean by the meaning of STAURWQHTW? You will learn nothing at that site. Go back further. To a transliteration, a word-for-word mechanical rendering of each word. So, was his translation correct? Or did it serve dogma of hundred of years later after the Event.
Jerome has done this before: taken liberties with meanings of words. See the frolic of his own in "translating" kngdv, ezer kenedgo, at Jerome's Ezer Kenegdo, kngdv, latin.
c. Transliteration, the only one we find online so far. Scripture4all. Same verse, Matthew 27:22. At ://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/mat27.pdf/
Find "staurOthEto" -- knowing the difficulty of phonetic renderings of other languages into ours so we can pronounce the words, this sounds like STAURWQHTW.
Fair enough for now.
d. And the meaning of staurOthEto?
- "let him be being impaled"
- "let him be being crucified"
What do we learn, about how religion changes what it wants to, in order to control?
Control and change the message! How would art represent impaling, as opposed to the highly sympathetic nails in gentle hands. An Institution can't have that, so change it. And, we must be absolutely certain about it so nobody thinks other than we want.
Why not be transparent, O Religios. If your message is a sound one, it can take it. The acknowledgment of ambiguity. If not, let the people go.
Shut the door when you leave. Thanks.
See Yahoo. Question deleted. What?
Try again: this one somehow has no responses at all -- http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/27862
Are we left with Wikipedia because authorities elsewhere will not respond? See ://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion. See CNN at ://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/07/01/bible-doesnt-say-jesus-was-crucified-scholar-claims/
Carry on. Check for yourself at Scripture4all, transliteration of the death story in each gospel. Find a version of STAURWQHTW, or the transliterated staurOthEtO. Impaled. Each time.
This "Blue letter Bible" turns out to be circular and ideologically bootstrapping, giving the "authorized" version, and referring to other Biblical uses of "crucified" in the New Testament. But never going back to the Greek itself.
Look up Strong elsewhere: here is the reference to "impale" -- and, as we know, with alternatives. Look at ://studybible.info/strongs/G4717/ And that is the point: that we do not know. There are indeed alternate meanings.
Look closer: This site keeps taking us back to G4716, to identify the word; which apparently means "crucify." But the Greek word we are pursuing is not the G4746 at all -- it is the G4717. That is the point. Points points. Impale. Look up G4746, the smoke and mirrors one they want us to look at -- find ://studybible.info/strongs/G4716/ There is the crucify idea.
So, is our conclusion that Jerome mistook the G4717 word for the G4716, or was the G4716 just tidier. Neater. Nicer. By all means, change it to suit the agenda.