Thanks for the reply , guys. It does seem to somewhat inconclusive , although I appreciate the research. As usual , it is probably not quite as black and white as the WTS claims. I have to be honest - the fact that the scripture renders that the sign was nailed above Jesus' head rather than his hands and the implications of this is a completely new argument to me.
Trying to find cross v. stake topics
by Sad emo 42 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
Leolaia
I think you are an interesting person, who know's her subjects, but I don't see it the same way. No one can really know how EXACTLY which way it was. Most historians take the middle ground and go for the TAU-shapped cross.
My article does not state definitively what the form of Jesus' cross was like. My essay basically falls into two parts: (1) Examining whether two-beamed crosses existed at the time of Jesus and whether stauros could refer to them (contrary to the claims of the Society), and (2) Examining the biblical and patristic evidence on Jesus' cross in particular. In the first part, I conclude that the two-beamed cross already did exist and that the word stauros was already used to refer to crucifixion in all its various forms (and that the Society has not been honest or competent in presenting evidence to support its view). In the second part, I indicate that the evidence is much more ambiguous about the shape of Jesus' cross, but the evidence is clearly more in favor of it being two-beamed than otherwise....John 19:17 in particular making it especially probable. I agree with you that no one can really know how exactly it was, but in probablistic terms, the evidence weighs much more heavily in favor of a two-beamed cross than a simple stake. As to whether it was Tau-shaped or shaped as a crux immissa or otherwise, the evidence is even more ambiguous tho one can take reasonable positions on the matter.
Did anyone consider this web page that was first noted by goinggoinggone (can't remember if that's his name now) http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/newworldtranslation/stauros.htm . If you push the END key, you'll see an an illustration at the bottom of the page a man being literally hanged on a stake. Scroll up a bit more, you'll see an early illustration of Jesus dying on a stake, but he looks as if he going to ascend to heaven at any minute.
First of all, this webpage imho is pretty poor in its presentation....instead of looking at ancient primary sources, it relies on old chestnuts like Parsons and Vine and thus reproduces their errors; the way it discusses Lucian's Prometheus is through a triumphant extract from the Watchtower, which completely ignores the posture indicated in the original source and focuses only on whether the word stauros is used. The image of "a man being literally hanged on a stake" is perfectly to be expected...there were a wide range of different ways to crucify a man, and a simple stake was one of them. That is not the critical issue. What matters is that the Society downplays the fact that there were other ways of crucifying people, that these were used very commonly by the Romans (naturally, since the patibulum was a native form of punishment used by them long before crucifixion was adopted by them), that the word stauros no longer just meant "stake" by that time, and that the biblical evidence is more consistent with a stake that has a patibulum than one that did not have one. What is missing in Watchtower literature is an even discussion of these issues. Why is it that the Society has never mentioned such sources as Plautus, Seneca, Lucian's Lis Consonantem, Epictetus, Artemidorus, etc. when they are clearly pertinent to the matter? Why do they misrepresent Livy? Why do they give the impression that stauros only meant "cross" centuries after Jesus' death? This webpage like the Society is quite selective what is considered as evidence.
As for the "early illustration", there is no information provided on how early it is, and it is clearly not "an illustration of Jesus dying on a stake". The other two criminals are depicted as bound by ropes to a simple stake but Jesus is not depicted the same way. His hands are outstretched, which is how early Christian tradition uniformily described his posture on the cross, i.e. as if outstretched on a crossbeam. The illustration however only depicts Jesus' posture and not the apparatus (like the other two victims). That this depicts his crucifixion seems to be reinforced by the two people at his feet, which reflects gospel traditions about Mary of Nazareth viewing her son at the cross and the Beloved Disciple being told to take care of Mary.
I think the JW's are right on this issue. I really do.
That's fine, everyone can examine the evidence for themselves and come up with their own conclusions.
Also, this page as well: http://jehovah.125mb.com/stake_or_cross.htm He/she seems to have put up a mighty good argument for stake in my opinion.
I see nothing of the sort. The author has compiled a lot of information from encyclopedias and other sources that presents much the same information that I have (i.e. lots of evidence indicating the use of other forms of crucifixion than a crux simplex), and concludes that "it is too hard to tell what he died on", i.e. no argument or conclusion from the evidence is given in favor of "stake". Rather, the author simply admits a belief that it was a simple stake "because that was how I was brought up as a Jehovah's Witness". The author instead wants definitive proof that it was NOT a stake (as you do), because the evidence as whole seems to contradictory and confusing to him/her. Such definitive proof will never exist, but it is possible to say which of the two possibilities is more probable than the other.
Again, assessing the evidence concerning Jesus in particular was not the only aim of my essay...my main point is that the principal claim of the Society against it being a cross (i.e. the linguistic claim about word meanings) is fallacious.
I think they used different forms on execution that was based on the same principle, that's how I think we'll never know.
You're right....it's just that if one were to say which one of these two possibilities is more likely (i.e. whether the stauros included a patibulum or not), the answer would not be "stake" as the Society dogmatically claims.
For those who quote John 20:25 ...“Unless I see in his hands the print of the nails and stick my finger into the print of the nails and stick my hand into his side, I will certainly not believe,” there are those people like me who quote Acts 5:30 "The God of our forefathers raised up Jesus, whom YOU slew, hanging him upon a stake." :)
The use of xulon does not point to "stake" any more than "cross". See my lengthy discussion of this in my thread.
Consider this: a stake looks more like a tree but just without the green leaves on top. A cross doesn't resemble the appearnace of a tree. It looks too neat in my opinion.
Again, see my thread. It was not called a "tree" because of appearance. It was called xulon because of its function, that Roman crucifixion was understood in light of the OT laws on hanging on trees. Even the Romans called their crosses "trees" (for a different reason, because of the older use of trees to execute people), and yes, explicitly two-beamed crosses.
The way that mainstream Christianity does it, makes it look like the Romans spent hours sanding it, trimming off all the bumpy bits for hours just to make Jesus' cross have that look.
LOL. Of course, depictions in art many centuries later is quite irrelevant to the question at hand.
But who cares? I saw Passion of the Christ (extremely violent, you have been warned!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) and I couldn't give a flying ____ what the shape was.
I agree. It is the Society that has made a big deal about it. What is important is the fact that the Society has to twist the evidence to support its views. That is why I thought it was worthwhile to present my research on it.
-
TheListener
Perhaps I'm ignorant but I thought if you died on the stake it was because they ran it through you from bum to neck. Thus transfixing you. Perhaps they also impaled people on stakes but I thought mostly it was transfixing.
-
inquirer
If you go to: http://www.holylandmall.net/jesuscrucified.html, it has Jesus on a stake,
and yes, it's a Catholic site, or at least pro-Catholic. Because one of the left
one of the links says "Free Rosary" and the banner at the bottom of the screen
says "Free olive wood rosary in honor of pope John Paul II." Bit of a shame how I couldn't put the picture here for some reason!!! (arrrgh!!)So, I think that's pretty interesting.
I read your post Leolaia, and I will surely reply later! :) Cheers. ;)
-
-
Leolaia
Very interesting picture, inquirer! Do you know if this is only a modern sculpture, or is a reproduction of something more ancient? Bear in mind that this is not a depiction of a crux simplex; there is clearly a horizontal patibulum at the top on which the hands are nailed to each branch of the tree. If this indeed depicts a tree, there would have to be a crossbeam depicted if it is to reflect the biblical account...
This just goes to show the wide variability of crucifixion in the ancient world, as Hengel also noted, and as is evident from Josephus and Seneca. As I stated in my original post, it is not the shape of the instrument that made a stauros or crux a "cross", but rather its function....as crucifixion was a particular kind of execution of nailing or binding living people on an apparatus. As long as the device facilitated this kind of execution, it was a stauros or crux. Its form could vary to whatever the executioner wished. Many today (including the Society) are misled by the English word "cross", whose meaning implies a kind of shape, i.e. cross-shaped. Of course, the use of the patibulum was very common for Roman authorities, and thus there are quite a few references in the literature of the slave or criminal carrying of the patibulum before crucifixion.
-
Poztate
So - how much does a non-kiln-dried pine post of approximately 6 inches in diameter and about 15 to 16 feet (3' in the ground, 3' to Christ's feet, 7-8' for his body length, 1' for a sign above him) long weigh? Call your local lumberyard.
NO ONE.... A very valid and thought provoking post. I am sure most of us here can see the logic to this argument. It is a pity that the average JW is blind to any kind of reasoning along this line.
-
Leolaia
Not just that, but there was no such attested practice of criminals carrying the stipes (upright post) alone to the place of execution. The whole practice of cross-bearing derives from the old patibulum-bearing punishment that antedated the Roman adoption of crucifixion as a method of execution (cf. Livy, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Plutarch). The Greek language did not borrow Latin patibulum as a loanword and simply used stauros to refer to this Roman practice (cf. Chariton, Plutarch, and especially Artemidorus who was explicit about the stauros as having a crossbeam). The gospels portray Jesus (or Simon of Cyrene) as bearing his stauros, which naturally is strong evidence that his cross indeed included a patibulum. And if the upright post was indeed a tree (as Joe Zias believes was the common practice at the time), then Jesus had to have carried the crossbeam since there wouldn't have been anything else for him to carry to Golgotha.
-
dozy
So - how much does a non-kiln-dried pine post of approximately 6 inches in diameter and about 15 to 16 feet (3' in the ground, 3' to Christ's feet, 7-8' for his body length, 1' for a sign above him) long weigh? Call your local lumberyard.
I think this is possible for a man to carry - I've seen builders carting similar sized poles around. Bear in mind that Jesus got help and he was a perfect 30 year old man , albeit one who had been sorely tortured. My back of the envelope calculations for the weight , based on a 100,000 cubic cm volume of the pole and allowing for the fact that the mass of dried pine is 300 - 500 kg/cubic m http://www.simetric.co.uk/si_wood.htm would have the weight of a dry pole at up to 50kg.
How wet it was we don't know - Israel is a hot country , and Jesus impalement took place in March / April. Depending on the degree of saturation , the water content would add 10 % - 30% to the weight , according to a forester friend of mine. The fact that Jesus carried (and gave out under the weight of) his instrument of death tends to support a "stake" argument as against a "cross" argument , as the weight of the cross beam would be much less.
It is a fascinating topic and thanks to Leolaia for her research. -
inquirer
REPLY TO LEOLAIA
Note: My conversation is in italics, bold italics---
My article does not state definitively what the form of Jesus' cross was like. My essay basically falls into two parts: (1) Examining whether two-beamed crosses existed at the time of Jesus and whether stauros could refer to them (contrary to the claims of the Society), and (2) Examining the biblical and patristic evidence on Jesus' cross in particular. In the first part, I conclude that the two-beamed cross already did exist and that the word stauros was already used to refer to crucifixion in all its various forms (and that the Society has not been honest or competent in presenting evidence to support its view). In the second part, I indicate that the evidence is much more ambiguous about the shape of Jesus' cross, but the evidence is clearly more in favor of it being two-beamed than otherwise....John 19:17 in particular making it especially probable. I agree with you that no one can really know how exactly it was, but in probablistic terms, the evidence weighs much more heavily in favor of a two-beamed cross than a simple stake. As to whether it was Tau-shaped or shaped as a crux immissa or otherwise, the evidence is even more ambiguous tho one can take reasonable positions on the matter.
___
I agree with most of the things you said entirely, but as pointed out on http://jehovah.125mb.com/stake_or_cross.htm, Most people didn't live in the era in the first century when people were impaled/crucified. The person on the site only highlights a few people could be right about their terminology for a crucifix instead of stake, but most people were born too early or too late:
Josephus -- 35 - 100 AD
Seneca -- c 4 BC - 65 AD
Tacitus -- c 56 - 120 AD)
Pliny the Elder -- 23 - 79 AD
Senecca the elder (Lucius) -- 54 BC - 39 AD
Lucius Annaeus Seneca -- c 4 BC–AD 65 (often known simply as Seneca, or Seneca the Younger)
Philo of Alexandria -- 20 BC - 40 AD
Dionysius of Halicarnassus -- 63 BC - 14 AD
Epictetus -- c 55 - 135
Plutarch -- 254 - 184 BC
Titus Maccius Plautus -- c 254 - 184 BC
Aristophanes -- c 448 - 380 BC
Lucius Apuleius -- 123-170 AD
Thucydides -- 460 - 400 BC
Homer -- Lived in the 8th or 9th century, tradition says he lived much earlier in the 12 century BC!
Lucian (Lucian of Samosata) -- c 120 - after 180 AD
Eubesius (Eusebius of Caesarea, (often called Eusebius Pamphili, "Eusebius [the friend] of Pamphilus") ) -- 275 – 339 AD
Irenaeus -- c 130 - 202 AD
Justin Martyr -- c 100/114 – c. 162/168 AD
Tertullian -- c 155 – 230 AD
Clement of Alexandria -- 150 - 215 AD
Firmicus -- 3/4th century AD
Rufinus -- 404 AD
Jerome -- 347 - 420
Augustine -- 354 - 430
Sibylline Oracles -- second century AD
Acts of Peter -- late second century AD
Acts of Andrew -- third century AD
Artemidorus -- lived 2nd century AD
Herodotus of Halicarnassus -- c 484 - 425 BC)
Minucius Felix,- lived 2nd century (lived in the same time as Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullianus, [c 155–230 AD]
(I know you mentioned this in your post, but most of the people who talked about this subject around that era were not close enough in time towards when Jesus died on his stake/cross.)
As you can see here it's only Senecca (and Senecca the elder), Tacitus, Pliny the Younger that could give an accurate description of what the torture device looked like in Jesus' era. As more time goes by like with many of these historians/politicians, the more distorted the facts, just like the Received text compared with the much early Sanaiticus Bible script.
First of all, this webpage imho is pretty poor in its presentation....instead of looking at ancient primary sources, it relies on old chestnuts like Parsons and Vine and thus reproduces their errors; the way it discusses Lucian's Prometheus is through a triumphant extract from the Watchtower, which completely ignores the posture indicated in the original source and focuses only on whether the word stauros is used. The image of "a man being literally hanged on a stake" is perfectly to be expected...there were a wide range of different ways to crucify a man, and a simple stake was one of them. That is not the critical issue. What matters is that the Society downplays the fact that there were other ways of crucifying people, that these were used very commonly by the Romans (naturally, since the patibulum was a native form of punishment used by them long before crucifixion was adopted by them), that the word stauros no longer just meant "stake" by that time, and that the biblical evidence is more consistent with a stake that has a patibulum than one that did not have one. What is missing in Watchtower literature is an even discussion of these issues. Why is it that the Society has never mentioned such sources as Plautus, Seneca, Lucian's Lis Consonantem, Epictetus, Artemidorus, etc. when they are clearly pertinent to the matter? Why do they misrepresent Livy? Why do they give the impression that stauros only meant "cross" centuries after Jesus' death? This webpage like the Society is quite selective what is considered as evidence.
You've got to be joking! He/she provides a lot of quotes from the WT, Bible dictionaries and historians! I know any quote from the WT could be "taken out of context, but some of those are obviously not "favorite WT quotes." The web page author talked about a private email with Jason Beduhn (who is favorable towards the New World Translation and the New American Bible -- slightly more favorably to the NWT than the NAB by the way, I've read the book) and asked about whether it should say "torture stake?" And he said they were on the right track but over emphasised the word "stake" with the adverb "torture." I've emailed him too on this issue and game the same answer. The only way I can understand where you are coming from (of which I am fully aware of) if this JW's site misquotes things like what the WT when they quote other sources. But I don't think all his/her sources could be "taken out of context" be does talk about a lot of things the WT hasn't discussed. I agree the WTS downplays other ways the Romans tortured people. I don't agree the word has changed it's meaning at such a convenient time as what seems to be the case by some people. The 1968 for the "crucified" man was apparently (according to the wanadoo page) was re-examined. And the archeologist Joseph Zias ended up by saying (http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/newworldtranslation/stauros.htm -- a bit further on from the old WTS picture of Jesus literally being nailed to a cross) "Dr Zias himself has stated to an enquirer about how the article depicted the malefactor's position on the "cross," "Our reconstruction for the arms being tied in the manner in the article was purely hypothetical. The arms could have been tied to the cross in any number of ways[including above his head on an upright pole]." (see also New Analysis of the Crucified Man, Biblical Archaeology Review.)See Crucifixion in Antiquity by J.Zias." [emphasis added.] So which way could it be?
As for the "early illustration", there is no information provided on how early it is, and it is clearly not "an illustration of Jesus dying on a stake".
Yes, true. I might email the person regarding that. But that picture could not be later than the 4th century when Constantine banned crucifixion once and for all because of this "conversion" to Christianity. But I am not sure how far you go "BC" either, but I would assume this place was in control in the "Roman empire" era.
The other two criminals are depicted as bound by ropes to a simple stake but Jesus is not depicted the same way. His hands are outstretched, which is how early Christian tradition uniformily described his posture on the cross, i.e. as if outstretched on a crossbeam.
But, his hands are free in this picture, aren't they? Bit like Mel with Passion of the Christ, with the bird pecking out the evil man's eye on the cross. That picture (the drawing) reminds me of in the Koran supposedly Jesus didn't die on a cross and make it look like that for his enemies. The picture looks medieval in origin because they tended to draw people short and stocky so I suppose there would have been more superstition and people exaggerate a bit. Just like that picture you posted of the graffiti from the walls of Roman Palentine "Alexamenos adores his God," with a jackyl's head. They are exaggerating their hatred (sic) of Jesus and Christianity. But lovers of Jesus are glorifying Jesus "ooh, no one can hurt him, he's the son of God" sort of thing...
The illustration however only depicts Jesus' posture and not the apparatus (like the other two victims). That this depicts his crucifixion seems to be reinforced by the two people at his feet, which reflects gospel traditions about Mary of Nazareth viewing her son at the cross and the Beloved Disciple being told to take care of Mary.
I see nothing of the sort. The author has compiled a lot of information from encyclopedias and other sources that presents much the same information that I have (i.e. lots of evidence indicating the use of other forms of crucifixion than a crux simplex), and concludes that "it is too hard to tell what he died on", i.e. no argument or conclusion from the evidence is given in favor of "stake". Rather, the author simply admits a belief that it was a simple stake "because that was how I was brought up as a Jehovah's Witness". The author instead wants definitive proof that it was NOT a stake (as you do), because the evidence as whole seems to contradictory and confusing to him/her. Such definitive proof will never exist, but it is possible to say which of the two possibilities is more probable than the other.
I think the author is saying "why should I believe if he died on the cross? Because the evidence doesn't match up for a "cross." So I'll keep believing how the JW's taught me one time. You are thinking the opposite of course. On the site, the person explains that "crucify" doesn't signify the shape, but means "torture." The person quoted the Catholic encyclopedia saying " The Latin word crux was applied to the simple pole, and indicated directly the nature and purpose of this instrument, being derived from the verb crucio, "to torment", "to torture" Like with http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/newworldtranslation/stauros.htm, He/she has quoted others rather than give his own opinion so he can show his audience that it's "out of the horses mouth," and he agrees with it, although he didn't originate the opinion. If we don't quote the sources, then people will get into trouble for that too!
Again, assessing the evidence concerning Jesus in particular was not the only aim of my essay...my main point is that the principal claim of the Society against it being a cross (i.e. the linguistic claim about word meanings) is fallacious.
The sources are quite numerous in evidence against the cross. If I quote from the http://jehovah.125mb.com site, he/she, quotes a lot of surprising statements (taken from http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04517a.htm) such as
- It is also to be noted that the word furca must have been at least partially equivalent to crux. In fact the identification of those two words is constant in the legal diction of Justinian (Leolia, You spent a bit of time talking about the meaning of the word furca on your post, and now this person is saying it is related to cross! It's a bit ambiguous to me. Check out the dictionary definition below in my post!**)
- The Latin word crux was applied to the simple pole, and indicated directly the nature and purpose of this instrument, being derived from the verb crucio, "to torment", "to torture"
- To this upright pole a transverse bar was afterwards added to which the sufferer was fastened with nails or cords, and thus remained until he died, whence the expression cruci figere or affigere (Tac., "Ann.", XV, xliv; Potron., "Satyr.", iii) (When was the transfer bar added?)
- It is not, therefore, altogether strange or inconceivable that, from the beginning of the new religion, the cross should have appeared in Christian homes as an object of religious veneration, although no such monument of the earliest Christian art has been preserved.
- It is from this original Christian worship of the cross that arose the custom of making on one's forehead the sign of the cross. Tertullian says: "Frontem crucis signaculo terimus" (De Cor. mil. iii), i.e. "We Christians wear out our foreheads with the sign of the cross." The practice was so general about the year 200, according to the same writer, that the Christians of his time were wont to sign themselves with the cross before undertaking any action. He says that it is not commanded in Holy Scripture, but is a matter of Christian tradition, (Christian tradition -- cross)
- Both the Latin and Greek crosses play an important part in the architectural and decorative styles of church buildings during the fourth and subsequent centuries.
- The Greek cross appears at intervals and rarely on monuments during the early Christian centuries.
- There are other forms of cross, such as the crux gammata, the crux florida, or flowering cross, the pectoral cross, and the patriarchal cross. But these are noteworthy rather for their various uses in art and liturgy than for any peculiarity of style. (Style -- not historicity!!)
- Especially in Africa, where Christianity had made more rapid progress, the cross began to appear openly during the course of the fourth century; The most ancient text we have relating to a carved cross dates from later than A.D. 362. (No cross til 362 when they became part of the Catholic Church!? Why not before?)
- The last objections and obstacles to the realistic reproduction of the Crucifixion disappeared in the beginning of the eighth century. (Wow! That's being open and honest!)
- In the artistic treatment of the crucifix there are two periods: the first, which dates from the sixth to the twelfth and thirteenth centuries; and the second, dating from that time to our own day. (Wow! So they never taught new converts to Christianity by illustration of how Christ died before the 6th century!!!)
You're right....it's just that if one were to say which one of these two possibilities is more likely (i.e. whether the stauros included a patibulum or not), the answer would not be "stake" as the Society dogmatically claims.
**What exactly is a patibulum? This site http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/secondary/SMIGRA/home.html says that it's "The patibulum was also an instrument of punishment, resembling the furca ; it appears to have been in the form of the letter P. " Doesn't look like Jesus' stake/cross to me! See how different people say different things? I am not sure if the character comes up on the page, but it looks like the capital A except the horizontal line is missing...
The use of xulon does not point to "stake" any more than "cross". See my lengthy discussion of this in my thread.
The Vine's dictionary has more than one definition of it, but admittingly points to definition #2 as a stake. But which definition is right? It's up the translator really... And according to Jason BeDuhn, he'd translate it as "stake." You've probably been a Witness, and you realize in the reference Bible they do say xulon/stauros makes the same thing and go to a lot of trouble to proof that in their appendix...
Again, see my thread. It was not called a "tree" because of appearance. It was called xulon because of its function, that Roman crucifixion was understood in light of the OT laws on hanging on trees. Even the Romans called their crosses "trees" (for a different reason, because of the older use of trees to execute people), and yes, explicitly two-beamed crosses.
Yes. I think I covered this early about function rather than shape?
LOL. Of course, depictions in art many centuries later is quite irrelevant to the question at hand.
Sure, as said before some picture may be a bit exaggerated, but it's all based on what they think is right. Maybe some pictures/illustrations are meant to shock people, but most were done in good faith.
I agree. It is the Society that has made a big deal about it. What is important is the fact that the Society has to twist the evidence to support its views. That is why I thought it was worthwhile to present my research on it.
Yes, Carl Jonson in his "Last Days -- When?" book mentions about the WTS taking people out of context! I should be careful about that myself. But they can't always be wrong all the time, no matter how unpopular the JW's are to people! That's bias... The person with the jehovah.125mb.com we page seems to be careful not to quote the WTS too much unlike the mysite.wanadoo page. I like the author of both webpages think "Why should we think any differently of how we were taught?" A subject like this would never come up if it wasn't for JW's and other groups like the Mormons (whom I am told on a poster on this message thread) who also don't believe Jesus died on a cross! It's interesting how "break away groups" lead to such indepth conversations like this one I am having with you! :)
(That's all I have to say for now... I wrote this pretty late, so I hope it reads well! lol)