Even MORE evidence for "Jesus died on a Cross"?

by ILoveTTATT 56 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  ILoveTTATT

  I like jwfact's http://www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/cross-or-stake.php

  It would probably be interesting to add the information found in this article:

  http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/crucifixion/the-staurogram/

  If someone wants to contact the professor who wrote the article, and who would, of course, be the authority on the subject, you can visit his blog at:

  http://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2011/10/13/the-staurogram-correcting-errors/

  What is interesting, and I don't know why there has been so little attention given to this, is that the Staurogram appears in the actual Bible Manuscripts!!

  P45, P66, P75.

  From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_symbolism#Staurogram:

  The Staurogram was first used to abbreviate the Greek word for cross in very early New Testament manuscripts such as P66 , P45 and P75 , almost like a nomina sacra . [14]

  The fact that the WTS knew about the Nomina Sacra is that there is a reference to them in the WT 1957 July 1, page 394. When they were doing the NWT, they must have come across this.

  From the NWT's manuscript and versions list:

  P45 Papyrus Chester Beatty 1, Gr., third cent. C.E., Dublin, G.S.

  P66 Papyrus Bodmer 2, Gr., c. 200 C.E., Geneva, G.S.

  P75 Papyrus Bodmer 14, 15, Gr., c. 200 C.E., Geneva, G.S.

  This is significant because it pushes back the first art depictions of the cross to the second century CE. Not only that, but the Staurogram appears on Bible manuscripts themselves!!

  ILTTATT
• 

  3dogs1husband

  following
• 

  erbie

  This was very informative, thankyou.

  This is very interesting and important info for both Witnesses and and ex Witnesses but the fact is that the Romans crucified people, that is what they did. History confirms that is what they did. Why on earth the Watchtower insists on being contrary is beyond me. We do an injustice to ourselves and others by even considering their petty argument which has no historical backing whatsoever.

  Thanks again for sharing this.
• 

  Phizzy

  Thanks from me too, good stuff. It is strange for me to consider the effect of being born-in and indoctrinated for decades. Despite having full knowledge of the information about the Cross, I still do not like it as an image.

  I thought I had got rid of every vestige of JWthink, evidently not. Sigh.

  And yet I appreciate what it means to Christians, it encapsulates their faith, what other symbol is better suited ?
• 

  besty

  It would be interesting to hear the professors viewpoint on the historicity of bible jesus.

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
• 

  Jeffro

  There barely any evidence Jesus existed at all, and no contemporary evidence, so I think it's a bit of a stretch to say there's much evidence that he died on a cross.
• 

  slimboyfat

  Yeah Hurtado has a chapter on it in this book.

  http://www.amazon.com/The-Earliest-Christian-Artifacts-Manuscripts/dp/0802828957

  I am not sure it proves the shape of the cross though, because isn't it just the shape of the letter Chi, the first letter in the title Christ?

  besty have you read Ehrman's new book?

  http://www.amazon.com/Did-Jesus-Exist-Historical-Argument/dp/0062206443

  I used to be skeptical about the existence of the historical Jesus but now less so.

  Hurtado has never written on the subject as far as I know, but he comes from a very conservative position, so he probably feels there is little doubt about the issue.
• 

  mP

  slimboy:

  Barts book is terrible, many other scholars say this. He spends far too much time arguing that scholars agree that jesus exists (aka authority) and little time actually providing proofs.
• 

  slimboyfat

  I thought he made a good point about the multiple sources that make up the gospels.

  Can you provide quotes from any scholars saying the book is terrible? Agreement on the existence of Jesus seems to be pretty unanimous among actual academics in biblical studies.
• 

  Jeffro

  slimboyfat:

  Agreement on the existence of Jesus seems to be pretty unanimous among actual academics in biblical studies.

  There's a good degree of scholarly agreement that there was probably some guy named (Anglicised as) 'Jesus' who was a bit of a political revolutionary. There's no evidence about the magical stories about Jesus in the Bible.