He is Favored 19

Strongs Greek #G2007 ἐπιθήσομεν (epithésomen) with dative, and in the context of assaulting, attacking.

The more straight forward word for "setting/placing/laying" something is τίθημι tithémi (See #G5087, Logeion τίθημι)

The verb ἐπιθήσομεν (epithésomen) in ancient Greek literature encompasses several nuanced meanings:

1. Act of placing or laying upon: Primarily used to denote placing or laying something upon something else, such as offerings on an altar (Od. 21.267; Ar. Nu. 426), setting meats on a table (Od. 1.140), or placing objects on a chariot (Il. 24.264).

2. Metaphorical or symbolic usage: It is also employed metaphorically to signify imposing or setting burdens, grievances, or fates upon individuals (Il. 24.589; Od. 24.419; AP 7.505).

3. To impose or inflict: Used in legal contexts to denote the imposition of penalties, judgments, or punishments (Od. 2.192; Hdt. 1.120, 144; Pl. Lg. 838c).

4. To lay or throw oneself upon: Followed by the dative of a person, indicating an attack or assault (Acts 18:10; Exodus 21:14; Exodus 18:11; 2 Chronicles 23:13), as well as in secular writings.

5. Metaphorical burdens or fates: Applied metaphorically to denote the imposition of grievances, burdens, or fates upon individuals (Il. 2.39; Od. 15.234; X. Lac. 10.7).

(Cf. Thayers Greek Lexicon, Logeion ἐπιτίθημι)

What Time Is It?

On John 19:14—“ἦν δὲ παρασκευὴ τοῦ πάσχα, ὥρα ἦν ὡς ἕκτη” (“And it was the Preparation Day of the Passover; it was about the sixth hour”)—there exists a long-standing scholarly difficulty in reconciling this Johannine time statement with the Synoptic accounts that situate the crucifixion at the third hour (Mark 15:25) and darkness at the sixth hour (Mark 15:33; Matthew 27:45; Luke 23:44). This "extreme difficulty" is frequently acknowledged (see Pulpit Commentary on John 1:39), and has led critics to argue that all John’s notices of time might reflect the Roman method of counting hours from midnight to noon and from noon to midnight, thereby aligning John with the Synoptic narratives. Yet such efforts to harmonize these “extreme difficulties” proceed from an anachronistic imposition of modern linear time concepts—imagining time as a sequence of discrete hours measured uniformly and mechanically.

In ancient Hebraic thought, however, “hour” (ὥρα) functioned not merely as a quantitative unit but as a theological locus of divine disclosure—a sign of Aonic Time (cf. John 4:6: “ὥρα ἦν ὡς ἕκτη” and John 19:14: “ὥρα ἦν ὡς ἕκτη”), which collapses linear chronology into a Möbius-like prophetic simultaneity: past, present, and future coalesce within a single revelatory moment. This concept parallels OT expressions such as “the day of that one” (ביום ההוא), denoting an eschatological time—“in the day of Himself”—attested in Genesis 15:18 and Isaiah 7:20.

Thus, John’s usage of “ὥρα” is not an empirical timestamp but a sacramental temporal marker, merging the Passover preparation with the divine hour of judgment and redemption (cf. John 2:4; 12:23; 17:1). The sixth hour, in this context, deliberately overlaps with the darkness hour in the Synoptics, demonstrating that the Passion is not confined to a historical timeline but unfolds within eternal time, wherein the crucifixion hour recapitulates creation, exodus, and the final judgment.

This insight reveals why modern scholars, seeking to harmonize or literalize these time references, have often failed: they neglect the Johannine recursivity that resists linear sequence, thereby missing the writer’s deeper intent to present the crucifixion as a cosmic, timeless event.

Greek σταυρώσω. I will stake down / crucify. 

Thayer's Greek Lexicon: STRONGS NT 4717: σταυρόω σταυρόω, σταυρῷ; future σταυρώσω; 1 aorist ἐσταυρωσα; passive, present σταύρομαι; perfect ἐσταύρωμαι; 1 aorist ἐσταυρωθην; (σταυρός,

This could be either Future or Subjunctive, as they are both spelled the same.

Let's break down the difference in syntax between the future active indicative form and the aorist subjunctive active form:

1. Future Active Indicative - I will stake-down:

   • "σταυρώσω" (staurōsō) is the first person singular form of the future tense.
   • The future tense indicates an action that will occur at a later time, in this case, the action of "crucifying."
   • The indicative mood indicates a statement of fact or certainty. In this form, the speaker is declaring their intention to perform the action of crucifying.

2. Aorist Subjunctive Active - I may stake-down:

   • The aorist tense generally refers to a completed action in past time, though it can also express undefined or unspecified action.
   • The subjunctive mood typically expresses possibility, potentiality, or uncertainty.
   • "σταυρώσω" (staurōsō) can indeed be the first person singular form of the aorist subjunctive active
   • In this case, the aorist subjunctive active form would express a hypothetical or potential action of crucifying, often used in conditional or indirect statements.

The phrase "βαστάζων ἑαυτῷ" (bastazōn heautō) translates to "bearing to his own self" or "carrying to himself" or with the accusative "the Stake": bearing the stake to his own self.

• "βαστάζων" (bastazōn) is the present active participle form of the verb "βαστάζω" (bastazō), which means "to carry" or "to bear."
• "ἑαυτῷ" (heautō) is the dative form of the reflexive pronoun "ἑαυτός" (heautós), which means "to his own self."

The whole phrase then, "βαστάζων ἑαυτῷ τὸν σταυρὸν" (bastazōn heautō ton stauro) would be:

"Carrying to his own self the stake."

Because ἑαυτῷ is not genitive, a translation of "carrying his own cross/stake" is therefore, for lack of any better way to put it, a lie. It is not "the Cross of himself" but rather "the Cross to himself."

"in Roman" or "in the Roman language" is more accurate than "in Latin" as a translation of Ῥωμαϊστί (Rhōmaïstí). While Ῥωμαϊστί can refer to the Latin language spoken by the Romans, it also encompasses the broader cultural and linguistic context of Roman civilization. Therefore, "in Roman" or "in the Roman language" captures the full meaning of Ῥωμαϊστί.

Strongs #2832, Κλωπᾶς. Klopas. A dubious etymology to many scholars, being a rare name. Some have suspected it was made up, which is also plausible since there are numerous words made up by NT authors to express specific meanings. The meaning is derived from the Greek root Κλo, from which comes "klepto" meaning to steal. And πᾶς which means "all/whole." The idea of Mary being married to some man named "a burglar of all" has led many to think it highly unlikely.

He Took Hold

Strong's #G2983, ἔλαβεν. An ironic word to use here, to be sure. The scholars defined it:

I. to take, i. e.:

1. to take with the hand, lay hold of, any person or thing in order to use it: absolutely, where the context shows what is taken, Matthew 26:26; Mark 14:22; (τόν) ἄρτον, Matthew 26:26; Acts 27:35; τό βιβλίον, Revelation 5:7-9 (see Buttmann, and Winer's Grammar, as above)

If his hands are nailed to a cross beam, there is a profound inconsistency with this word. Or maybe the author of the story smoking something?

Strong's #G2827. The verb "κλίνω" in Ancient Greek can also be used to mean "to recline," particularly in the sense of lying down or positioning oneself in a resting or reclining posture. This usage stems from the idea of "bending" or "inclining" the body, typically in a way that is horizontal or at an angle, which aligns with how we think of reclining. There is already NT precedent/context for it:

"but the Son of the Man is not holding in the place where he may recline the Head."

(Matthew 8:20 RBT)

In the context of reclining, "κλίνω" implies that a person is bending their body in such a way that they are no longer sitting upright but rather lying back or at an inclined angle. This could apply to various situations, such as reclining on a couch, in a bed, or during a meal (for example, when people reclined at tables in ancient Greece during banquets).

For example, the verb could be used in the following way:

• "Ἐκείνη ἐκλίνετο ἐπὶ τοῦ κλίνους."
  ("She reclined on the couch.")
  Here, "ἐκλίνετο" is a form of "κλίνω", indicating the action of reclining or lying down.

In Ancient Greek culture, especially during symposia (drinking parties), reclining was a common practice. Participants would lie back on couches in a reclining position while eating and drinking, which is another reason why "κλίνω" came to be associated with reclining.

So, when "κλίνω" is used to mean "recline," it carries the idea of a body being bent or inclined into a position of rest, often lying down or leaning back at an angle.

Did he die? The Soldiers thought so...

This phrase in John 19:33, ὡς εἶδον ἤδη αὐτὸν τεθνηκότα, has serious syntactic ambiguity owing to the variable position of the adverb ἤδη ("already") and the usage of a participle τεθνηκότα ("one who is dead") instead of an aorist indicative: ἔθανον — "He died". Is John not conscious of this? Surely he is. But why? Nevermind, later copies and manuscripts have "corrected" the ambiguity for us.

Manuscript evidence shows variation between readings as ὡς εἶδον ἤδη αὐτὸν τεθνηκότα (Nestle 1904, Westcott-Hort 1881, Tischendorf 8th ed.) and ὡς εἴδον αὐτὸν ἤδη τεθνηκότα (Byzantine Majority Text 2005, Greek Orthodox Church, Textus Receptus). This difference affects whether the emphasis lies on the act of perceiving ("as they already perceived him to be dead") or on the state of being dead ("as they saw him already dead"). The flexible word order characteristic of Koine Greek permits such semantic variance. The presence of these variants in the textual tradition suggests scribes were aware of the ambiguity and, in later copies, altered the word order to clarify meaning. Thus, the textual history reflects a tension between an epistemic nuance—perceiving as though dead—and a more straightforward assertion of death’s actuality.

This nuance is consistent with similar uses of ὡς and ἤδη in the New Testament, where the adverb may either modify the perception or the predicate, depending on its syntactic placement (cf. Matt 6:29; 7:29; John 11:33). The variation exemplifies scribal attempts to resolve interpretive ambiguity in a theologically sensitive passage. John reports the perception of the Soldiers, what about his own understanding?

Where is the certainty, John?

The phrase ὡς εἶδον ἤδη αὐτὸν τεθνηκότα, due to its syntactic ambiguity, does not unequivocally convey the certainty of death. The construction can be read as “as they already perceived him dead” but also allows for an epistemic shading—“as if they saw him already dead” or “perceiving as though he was dead”—which introduces a degree of subjectivity or provisionality rather than a definitive statement. This nuanced ambiguity would be insufficient for communicating absolute certainty about death to a contemporary reader. Furthermore, John uses τεθνηκότα which is a participle "he who is dead", rather than a more definitive ἔθανον "he died" which would leave no cause for question. But instead we have "the soldiers already perceived him as dead."

But this, most certainly, does not help in the construction of theological dogmas of death.

Ok, I'll just go ahead and move around the word order a little bit...no one will notice!

Consequently, later scribal changes that reposition ἤδη or adjust word order are clearly motivated by the desire to try to clarify or strengthen the assertion of death’s actuality. The phrase ὡς εἶδον ἤδη αὐτὸν τεθνηκότα (“as they already saw/perceived him to be dead”) conveys a perceptual judgment or an assumption based on appearance, rather than an objective or irrefutable confirmation of death. From an evidentiary standpoint, this formulation would be considered insufficient or weak testimony for the following reasons:

• Grammatically, this clause reports a subjective visual assessment (ὡς εἶδον), not a forensic determination.

• The construction ὡς + indicative, especially with verbs of perception like εἶδον, often introduces a clause that reflects the perspective or judgment of the subject, not necessarily objective fact.

• Implication for narrative reliability: The phrase suggests the narrator reports the soldiers’ judgment rather than asserting a settled, objective fact.

In other words, John himself never said he died. What he did say, was that the Soldiers perceived him as dead.

The RBT translates the original, authoritative texts as they were originally penned, so all may read the ambiguity, and decide for themselves.