What Did σταυρός Mean to the Original Evangelist Mark?

I picked this up through the Evangelical Textual Criticism blog and a discussion at freeratio.org. Samuelsson has been in the news emphasizing that the account of Jesus's death in the gospel is a little more ambiguous than most realize. Here is today's article in the Telegraph, a fuller discussion of his thesis and a recent interview Samuelsson gave to explain his position.

The Wikipedia entry for stauros is surprisingly detailed:

In its original meaning, "the Greek word for cross, [stau·ros′], properly signified a stake, an upright pole, or piece of paling, on which anything might be hung, or which might be used in impaling [fencing in] a piece of ground."[2] As stated in "The Cross and the Crucifixion" appendix, The Companion Bible (1922), in Liddell and Scott , and in many other works of reference, Homer (about one thousand years before the time when the gospels were written) used the word os of an ordinary pole or stake, or a single piece of timber; and this was the meaning and usage of the word throughout the Greek classics (four or five centuries before the time of the gospels). In the literature of that time it never means two pieces of timber placed across one another at any angle, but always one piece alone.[3]

Koine Greek

In A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to The English and Greek New Testament (1877), E.W. Bullinger, in contrast to other authorities, stated: "The "σταυρός" (stauros) was simply an upright pale or stake to which Romans nailed those who were thus said to be crucified, σταυρόω, merely means to drive stakes. It never means two pieces of wood joining at any angle. Even the Latin word crux means a mere stake. The initial letter Χ, (chi) of Χριστός, (Christ) was anciently used for His name, until it was displayed by the T, the initial letter of the Pagan God Tammuz, about the end of cent. iv."[4] This statement conflicts with the documented fact that, long before the end of the fourth century, the Epistle of Barnabas, which was certainly earlier than 135,[5] and may have been of the first century A.D.,[6] the time when the gospel accounts of the death of Jesus were written, likened the σταυρός to the letter T (the Greek letter tau, which had the numeric value of 300),[7] and to the position assumed by Moses in Exodus 17:11-12.[8] The shape of the σταυρός is likened to that of the letter T also in the final words of Trial in the Court of Vowels among the works of second-century Lucian, and other second-century witnesses to the fact that at that time the σταυρός was envisaged as being cross-shaped and not in the form of a simple pole are given in Dispute about Jesus' execution method.
In Koine Greek, the form of Greek used between about 300 B.C. and A.D 300, the word σταυρός was already used to refer to a cross. It was used[9] to refer to the instrument of execution by crucifixion, which at that time involved binding the victim with outstretched arms to a crossbeam, or nailing him firmly to it through the wrists; the crossbeam was then raised against an upright shaft and made fast to it about 3 metres from the ground, and the feet were tightly bound or nailed to the upright shaft.

References

1 Liddell and Scott: σταυρός
2 The Imperial Bible-Dictionary, Edited by P. Fairbairn (London, 1874), Vol. I, p. 376.
3 The Companion Bible. (1922) Appendix 162.
4 E. W. Bullinger, A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to The English and Greek New Testament. (1877), edition from 1895 pp, 818-819 194.
5 For a discussion of the date of the work, see Information on Epistle of Barnabas and Andrew C. Clark, "Apostleship: Evidence from the New Testament and Early Christian Literature," Evangelical Review of Theology, 1989, Vol. 13, p. 380
5 John Dominic Crossan, The Cross that Spoke (ISBN 9780062548436) , p. 121
6 Epistle of Barnabas, 9:7-8
7 "The Spirit saith to the heart of Moses, that he should make a type of the cross (σταυρός) and of Him that was to suffer, that unless, saith He, they shall set their hope on Him, war shall be waged against them for ever. Moses therefore pileth arms one upon another in the midst of the encounter, and standing on higher ground than any he stretched out his hands, and so Israel was again victorious" (Epistle of Barnabas, 12:2-3).
8 For instance, in the gospels, written in the second half of the first century
9 Encyclopaedia Britannica: Crucifixion (capital punishment)

It is worth noting that the heretics opposed by Irenaeus had a very different understanding of what stauros meant in the gospel is obvious too:

They show, further, that that Horos of theirs, whom they call by a variety of names, has two faculties,--the one of supporting, and the other of separating; and in so far as he supports and sustains, he is σταυρός, while in so far as he divides and separates, he is Horos. They then represent the Saviour as having indicated this twofold faculty: first, the sustaining power, when He said, "Whosoever doth not bear his σταυρός, and follow after me, cannot be my disciple;" and again, "Taking up the σταυρός follow me;" but the separating power when He said, "I came not to send peace, but a word." They also maintain that John indicated the same thing when he said, "The fan is in His hand, and He will thoroughly purge the floor, and will gather the wheat into His garner; but the chaff He will burn with fire unquenchable." By this declaration He set forth the faculty of Horos. For that fan they explain to be the σταυρός, which consumes, no doubt, all material objects, as fire does chaff, but it purifies all them that are saved, as a fan does wheat. Moreover, they affirm that the Apostle Paul himself made mention of this σταυρός in the following words: "The doctrine of the σταυρός is to them that perish foolishness, but to us who are saved it is the power of God." And again: "God forbid that I should glory in anything save in the σταυρός of Christ, by whom the world is crucified to me, and I unto the world." [AH i.3.5]

It is worth noting that the first hymn of Marqe among the Samaritans which is said at ANY gathering of Samaritans is about 'crucifixion' (same ambiguity Samuelsson points to in Aramaic. Here is a translation that my friend Professor Ruairidh Boid did for me from the original Aramaic:

Punishments don’t disconcert the sinner, nor do wounds frighten him. He doesn’t take any notice. The rebel sees himself delivered up to punishments, and finds himself crucified. He turns to his possessions (?), and knows that there is no enjoyment from it.

Death can be compared to a Priest making someone drink the Bitter Water of Testing.

[Boid's note - I have translated according to the traditional Samaritan etymology and understanding, which is not far from the traditional Jewish understanding. Disregard the mangling by most modern translations. This is water that is drunk to establish innocence. It has a tiny little bit of the dirt of the ground round the Sanctuary in it, as well as something to make it bitter, from memory I think wormwood. A guilty person is afflicted by it. (It was a wonderful device for clearing people of slander). The innocent person unjustly accused is given better bodily and mental and spiritual health by it. (This is one of the hints of resurrection in the Torah, and Marqe seems to have it in mind along with the other meanings). The false accuser who has sworn a false oath or committed perjury or conspiracy is struck by afflictions or even in some cases death. The passage in the Torah is in Numbers. I will look up the reference later. There is a lot of traditional theory not stated in the words of the Torah but agreed on by Samaritans and Jews]

The innocent person unjustly accused is given better bodily and mental and spiritual health by it. The false accuser who has sworn a false oath or committed perjury or conspiracy is struck by afflictions or even in some cases death. Woe on whoever is found to have committed sin. Woe on all sinners, since they will be in great distress. The punishments they suffer are the result of all their offences.

The soul (or individual) stands dumbfounded. Those living are in great affliction, because the Good has turned his face away from them. If the Merciful does not save, and remember those that love him, all the sinners will bewail themselves, because they are in great distress.

The signs tell us that in this generation of ours there is not a single person not in partnership with sinners. The mothers and children, all of whom took part and rebelled (maradu), they too are punished with (or suffer) suffocation (tashnîqayya).

The fact is that by our sins we are the ones that are the murderers, murderers of the silent and those that can speak Innocent animals or children that have never sinned, or young adults of good descent, suffer for sins they never committed.

It is the Fanuta (era of disfavor) that has brought all this suffering about. The fruit of the womb is stopped, and the fruit of the earth destroyed. Every place is becoming accursed for us. The mouth of punishment is open before, ready to swallow up the baby with the old man.

Merciful and Good, treat us justly and well as is your nature. We can’t withstand this judgment. A leaf on a tree startles a sinner, so how can we withstand judgment that startles the world? Treat us justly and well, so that we aren’t …… [verb is shin-nun-qof] by punishments

And some more notes from Boid that I managed to preserve about the hymn:

(a) The only hymn of Marqe’s I could find that fits what you said is no. I. This is recited in part on every Sabbath and every Festival. Notice this. At some time it must have been laid down that it had to be recited constantly. It will take me some time to translate. It has 22 verses, each with seven lines. 22 x 7 = 154.

This hymn speaks of death and destruction in the present, wrought by estrangement from the will of God, and urges a reversal of behaviour. One verse could be taken as referring to executions, depending on how you understand one word. This is the fifth verse. Other verses might refer to this, but not directly.

“As a consequence of the sins we have committed, we are afflicted (or punished) with the T Sh N Y Q Y H. [Look up the root Sh N Q in Jastrow]. We can’t blame your goodness. All the blame is on us, since we ourselves have made ourselves perish. If someone goes and hits himself, who can rescue him?”.

Tashnîqayyå is the definite plural of T Sh N Y Q tashneq from the root Sh N Q. Ben-Hayyim is not at all convinced that it always means strangulation.

(b) The hymns translated by Kippenberg are from the collection called the Durran. They are very old. These are the hymns that talk about a very recent rejection of wrong religious practice or perhaps wrong doctrine.

(c) There is a lot of work to be done on the Samaritan liturgy. Life is too short.

Hymn I verse lamed. “Punishments don’t disconcert the sinner, nor do assaults [or blows, or wounds] frighten him. He doesn’t take any notice. The rebel (marod) sees himself delivered up to punishments, and finds himself crucified. [This is the traditional Samaritan understanding here, but Ben-Hayyim argues for the meaning “burnt up”. The Aramaic verb is apparently from the root tsade-lamed-bet, and this is how the Samaritans understand it. Ben-Hayyim thinks this to be a phonetic variant of tsade-lamed-he-bet in this place, but it seems to me that he is scratching round for alternatives to the traditional understanding because he can’t see the relevance of it]. He turns to his ……. [meaning uncertain, perhaps property], and knows that there is no enjoyment from it”.

Verse Mem. “Death can be compared to a Priest making someone drink the Bitter Water of Testing. [I have translated according to the traditional Samaritan etymology and understanding, which is not far from the traditional Jewish understanding. Disregard the mangling by most modern translations. This is water that is drunk to establish innocence. It has a tiny little bit of the dirt of the ground round the Sanctuary in it, as well as something to make it bitter, from memory I think wormwood. A guilty person is afflicted by it. (It was a wonderful device for clearing people of slander). The innocent person unjustly accused is given better bodily and mental and spiritual health by it. (This is one of the hints of resurrection in the Torah, and Marqe seems to have it in mind along with the other meanings). The false accuser who has sworn a false oath or committed perjury or conspiracy is struck by afflictions or even in some cases death. The passage in the Torah is in Numbers. I will look up the reference later. There is a lot of traditional theory not stated in the words of the Torah but agreed on by Samaritans and Jews]. Woe on whoever is found to have committed sin. Woe on all sinners, since they will be in great distress. The punishments they suffer are the result of all their offences”.

Verse Nun. “The soul (or individual) stands dumbfounded. Those living are in great affliction, because the Good has turned his face away from them. If the Merciful does not save, and remember those that love him, all the sinners will bewail themselves, because they are in great distress”.

Verse Samech. “The signs tell us that in this generation of ours there is not a single person not in partnership with sinners. The mothers and children, all of whom took part and rebelled (maradu), they too are punished with (or suffer) tashnîqayya”.

Verse ‘Ayin. “The fact is that by our sins we are the ones that are the murderers, murderers of the silent and those that can speak Innocent animals or children that have never sinned, or young adults of good descent, suffer for sins they never committed”.

Verse Pe. “It is the Fanuta that has brought all this suffering about. The fruit of the womb is stopped, and the fruit of the earth destroyed. Every place is becoming accursed for us. The mouth of punishment is open before, ready to swallow up the baby with the old man”.

The word from the root tsade-lamed-bet in Verse Lamed is מצטלבה miṣṭållēbå. It is a perfectly normal ethpa’al participle (to use Syriac terminology) equivalent to the Hebrew hitpa’el. The t.et is an infix. It is the tav of the hitpa’el or ethpa’al which moves to AFTER a sibilant and changes its form to match the sibilant. Here it changes from tav to tsade. Next to zayin it will change to dalet. The only difficulty is the suffix, which in form is either feminine indefinite or masculine definite. The second grammatical interpretation of the suffix gives “The rebel sees himself vulnerable to punishments, and knows that he himself is the one crucified”. The first interpretation gives the meaning, “and knows that his identity is crucified”. The word translated “he himself” or “his identity” can only be interpreted from the context and a grammatical analysis of the components of the word, since the usage here is not attested elsewhere.

Something different. The old Samaritan Hebrew to Aramaic dictionary of the Torah glosses Shilo as “the unsheather of the cross”. Any suggestions? Ben-Hayyim, followed like a sheep as usual by Tal (who should have copied Ben-Hayyim’s thoroughness and rigour but didn’t) translates “the uprooter of the cross” saying (as a mere guess) that it refers to Muhammad. This makes no sense. How could the rise of Islam have been what took the sceptre away from Judah? The verb shin-lamed-pe usually means to unsheathe a sword, but can mean to take a shoe off or to pull something out of the ground. I think the plain meaning is that the reference is to whoever unsheathed the cross and used it like a sword to take power away from Judah or the Jews, but I can’t work out what exactly is meant.

Verse Resh. “Merciful and Good, treat us justly and well as is your nature. We can’t withstand this judgment. A leaf on a tree startles a sinner, so how can we withstand judgment that startles the world? Treat us justly and well, so that we aren’t …… [verb is shin-nun-qof] by punishments”.

Notice the phrase in bold type. I have read right through this hymn. There are some more lines on the same theme in Verse Kaf and Verse Tsade, but they don’t add anything new.

ADDITION: The verb shin-vav-bet is Hebrew. The Aramaic equivalent is tav-vav-bet. The participle of the Aramaic verb is Ta’eb. I think your question is whether the Aramaic tav-vav-bet occurs. No. In Verse Yod the verb h.et-zayin-resh is used to mean returning to God or repenting. This is the usual Samaritan theological equivalent of the Hebrew shin-vav-bet when writing in Aramaic. The word Ta’eb does not mean someone that repents. It means someone that comes back again. It is used in the the extant texts in the sense of someone that makes something come back again, the Tabernacle or the Ruuta. That is grammatically impossible. In that meaning the af‘al participle would be needed (=Hebrew hif‘il), i.e. metib. This means the original meaning of the return of Moses has been deliberately obscured.