Cross or a Stake - which was it?

by KAYTEE 120 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Leolaia

  heathen...Your point about the cross symbol is an important one, because the Society (and Parsons, and W. E. Vine, and Bullinger, etc.) has thoroughly confused the historical question of crucifixion in the ancient world (as a method of execution), with the use of the cross shape as a religious symbol. Two very different things, but because there is a well-attested use of the cross shape outside of Christianity, the Society is inclined to view the tradition of Jesus' crucifixion in Christianity (as involving a two-beamed cross) as nothing more than the incursion of pagan influence, and thus downplay whatever evidence there is that, in fact, the Roman cross was indeed typically double-beamed.

  The cross shape is, in fact, a very simple geometrical shape...the intersection of two lines at right angles. That's all there is to it. So naturally, of course, it would be wide-spread in cultures around the world, just as other simple shapes are invested with symbolic meaning.
• 

  Leolaia

  from what I have seen on history channel and discovery of late, most modern scholars and historians are saying it was neither a cross nor a stake but the T and the top peices was the only part carried by the criminals.

  Actually both a T-shaped cross and one with the crosspiece lowered would have had the patibulum attached, so either shape would be a form of a "cross", as opposed to a "stake" without a patibulum.

  Here is a pretty good reconstruction of crucifixion at the following website:

  http://www.frugalsites.net/jesus/crucifixion.htm

  which has this helpful image depicting patibulum-bearing and the varieties of the two-beamed cross:

  
• 

  Hellrider

  Inquirer:

  Another problem I have is that people on this message board go out of their way to prove the JW's wrong. It's like it's almost a sport at times! And I think that is not very scholary

  Leolaia is right, the issue isn`t in itself important, but it`s important, because the WT has made a big deal of it. To the WTBTS and to the JWs around the world, it`s a kind of a "boasting thing", a "we know the truth about how christ died, and the cross is a pagan symbol, oh how fitting, as the church and all of christianity is mere satanism, we have the true religion, noone else"-thing. That`s why it`s a big deal, to me, anyhow. And read thru Leolaias article, it`s great (but very long, I`ve taken a copy of it and saved it on my hard-disk).

  And Heathen: The swastika, wchich the nazis used, has nothing (or very little) to do with the cross. It`s an old aryan symbol used in India for thousands of years, and this symbol was used by the nazis in their quest for "aryanism" (long and complicated story, one of the original indo-european peoples, the aryans, emigrated southwards into Iran, Turkey, Afghanistan and India...and with the Indians, the swastika symbol was still in use...and this inspired Hitler into using it).
• 

  Narkissos

  One side point I'd wish to make: the first explicit references to a T- or latin cross (implying a 2 h 45 crucifixion as another poster put it), as listed by Leolaia, not only perfectly fit the earlier mentions of stauros or crux, including the Gospel narratives (e.g. the nails in Jesus' hands and the titulus over his head), but to our knowledge raised no debate whatsoever in the ancient church. They were not felt as an innovation.

  I know this is an argument from silence, but I think it is valid inasmuch as the modern sectarian proponents of the crux simplex, or stake, contradict a continuous and thus far unchallenged ancient tradition: the burden of proof is theirs, and their only argument is an anachronistic use of etymology (about which Leolaia's "car" example is quite telling).

  Even if Jesus' crucifixion was a cruci-fiction, it plainly was meant and understood to refer to the Roman mode of execution, which obviously did not change in first three centuries AD.

  It is very similar to the WT's claims about Jesus using the name Yhwh, despite the complete lack of evidence, "because he would not conform to Jewish tradition". How do we know? The idea of Jesus' "not conforming to Jewish tradition" comes from specific controversy texts about the sabbath, dietary or purity laws (reflecting the debates between some Christian and Jewish communities). We know the debates from the debated issues. The name Yhwh was not one of them.
• 

  kid-A

  personally I have never understood the logic of glorifying the object of his execution....if it had been the electric chair, would we be wearing little silver "electric chair"

  pendants on our necks?
• 

  heathen

  yah but the problem I have with the patibulum is that I've seen people in Israel show that the path jesus took could not have allowed a cross beam mounted on his shoulders since the gates were too narrow . Also the account tells that jesus dropped the object and simon had to carry it for him the rest of the way .

  Kid-A --- that is the point I've been trying to make . The use of cross in worship is disgusting . The cross was always a pagan symbol prior to jesus . When jesus said you must pick up your torture stake and follow me I don't think he meant literally .People like to attach all sorts of meaning to the object none of which can be justified in the scriptures .
• 

  Leolaia

  yah but the problem I have with the patibulum is that I've seen people in Israel show that the path jesus took could not have allowed a cross beam mounted on his shoulders since the gates were too narrow . Also the account tells that jesus dropped the object and simon had to carry it for him the rest of the way.

  (1) There is no valid objection here, because the existing gates are all from much later (the Romans razed Jerusalem to the ground in the 130s), and the photos of the gates at the following website show no problem at all with accommodating a patibulum on outstretched arms.

  http://www.bibleplaces.com/oldcitygates.htm

  (2) There is no such story about Jesus dropping the cross and Simon of Cyrene picking it up for him. This is an ad hoc harmonization between the synoptic and Johannine versions of the cross-bearing episode; in the former, Simon alone is said to carry the cross and in the latter, Jesus is said to carry the cross. No account refers to the cross being dropped, and each simply tells a scenario of the cross being carried to Golgotha. Even if there was, this has no bearing on whether the beam being carried was a patibulum or not. The dropping of the cross as performed in Via Delarosa reenactments involves a crossbeam and there is nothing about a crossbeam that makes it unable to be dropped (neither were the hands necessarily wrapped around the beam).

  personally I have never understood the logic of glorifying the object of his execution....if it had been the electric chair, would we be wearing little silver "electric chair" pendants on our necks?

  Kid-A --- that is the point I've been trying to make . The use of cross in worship is disgusting. The cross was always a pagan symbol prior to jesus . When jesus said you must pick up your torture stake and follow me I don't think he meant literally. People like to attach all sorts of meaning to the object none of which can be justified in the scriptures.

  Certainly disgusting by modern sensibilities and by Greco-Roman sensibilities too, to whom it was nothing more than a vile execution apparatus. An electric chair is also a cringeworthy piece of technology devoid of any redemptive value. But the "cross of Christ" was not viewed this way by early Christians. Paul speaks glowingly of the cross of Christ, as being filled with "power" (1 Corinthians 1:17), such that "the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing but to those who are being saved it is the power of God" (v. 18; cf. v. 23). Foolishness to those who only see the cross of Christ as a vile execution apparatus, but Paul saw the cross representing something greater. Paul said that he should boast only about "the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ" and that Christians were being persecuted "for the cross of Christ" (Galatians 6:12-14), and those who oppose Christ as being "enemies of the cross of Christ" (Philippians 3:18). This is not the language of a person who viewed the cross of Christ as a repulsive execution instrument. Christians held the "cross of Christ" not in derision but as the means through which they receive salvation from death and sin. And tho the cross was viewed as mystically significant, it was not an object of worship by the second-century apologists:

  "For in that you attribute to our religion the worship of a criminal and his cross, you wander far from the neighbourhood of the truth, in thinking either that a criminal deserved, or that an earthly being was able, to be believed God....Crosses, moreover, we neither worship nor wish for. You, indeed, who consecrate gods of wood, adore wooden crosses perhaps as parts of your gods. For your very standards, as well as your banners; and flags of your camp, what else are they but crosses glided and adorned? Your victorious trophies not only imitate the appearance of a simple cross, but also that of a man affixed to it. We assuredly see the sign of a cross, naturally, in the ship when it is carried along with swelling sails, when it glides forward with expanded oars; and when the military yoke is lifted up, it is the sign of a cross; and when a man adores God with a pure mind, with hands outstretched" (Minucius Felix, Octavius 29).

  If the cross subsequently became more of an object of worship (a questionable proposition, at least), this would have been subsequent to the earlier appreciation... if not glorification....of the cross of Christ and its redemptive meaning...
• 

  heathen

  Leolaia --- Interesting point but nowhere in there does the apostle paul mention making crosses and using them in worship . The cross itself is not salvation but the blood of christ is. Even the 10 commandments forbade the making of idols and images of anything on the earth in the sky or sea .
• 

  AlanF

  The poster ithinkisee and I recently had a short, private exchange about "cross versus stake", and as a result I obtained a copy of a 19th-century Bible dictionary that the Watchtower Society used in the so-called Reasoning book to make some points, but actually misrepresented. This post shows the Society's gross dishonesty, and allows the reader to see scans of a slightly more recent edition of the Bible dictionary that the Society misrepresented.

  The Reasoning book states:

  The Greek word rendered "cross" in many modern Bible versions ("torture stake" in NW) is stauros. In classical Greek, this word meant merely an upright stake, or pale. Later it also came to be used for an execution stake having a crosspiece. The Imperial Bible-Dictionary acknowledges this, saying: "The Greek word for cross, [stauros], 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. . . . Even amongst the Romans the crux (from which our cross is derived) appears to have been originally an upright pole.--Edited by P. Fairbairn (London, 1874), Vol. I, p. 376.

  The website at this link ( http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/7831/cross.html ) shows that the Society misrepresented what the Imperial Bible Dictionary said:

  QUOTE..........MISQUOTE:

  In its "Reasoning From the Scriptures" book, the Watchtower Society quotes from several sources to support their "torture stake" theory.
  
  These publications not only seem authoritative, but also seem to support the Society's claims regarding the "torture stake" rather than the traditional cross. However, unbeknown to many, the Watchtower Society has not been honest in its quotations of its sources.

  For example, one publication that the Society quotes in its "Reasoning..." book on page 89 is The Imperial Bible Dictionary. Below is the Watchtower quotation, with the words that they omitted in RED:

  "The Imperial Bible Dictionary acknowledges this, saying: "The Greek word for cross, (stauros), 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. But a modification was introduced as the dominion and usages of Rome extended themselves through Greek-speaking countries. Even amongst the Romans, the crux (from which the word cross is derived) appears to have been originally an upright pole, and always remained the more prominent part. But from the time that it began to be used as an instrument of punishment, a traverse piece of wood was commonly added...about the period of the Gospel Age, crucifixion was usually accomplished by suspending the criminal on a cross piece of wood."

  I was able to obtain a somewhat later version of the Imperial Bible Dictionary than the 1874 edition; it appears to be from about 1885, based on the date of the Introduction in Volume 1 (this is a six-volume set). It contains exactly the same text as the above-linked website indicates for the 1874 version.

  I've uploaded scans of the title page and of the relevant pages under the subject "Cross":

  http://home.comcast.net/~alanf00/images/imp_bib_dict_p0.jpg
  http://home.comcast.net/~alanf00/images/imp_bib_dict_p84.jpg
  http://home.comcast.net/~alanf00/images/imp_bib_dict_p85.jpg
  http://home.comcast.net/~alanf00/images/imp_bib_dict_p86.jpg

  The Reasoning book also states:

  Was that the case in connection with the execution of God’s Son? It is noteworthy that the Bible also uses the word xylon to identify the device used. A Greek-English Lexicon, by Liddell and Scott, defines this as meaning: "Wood cut and ready for use, firewood, timber, etc. . . . piece of wood, log, beam, post . . . cudgel, club . . . stake on which criminals were impaled . . . of live wood, tree." It also says "in NT, of the cross," and cites Acts 5:30 and 10:39 as examples. (Oxford, 1968, pp. 1191, 1192) However, in those verses KJ, RS, JB, and Dy translate xylon as "tree." (Compare this rendering with Galatians 3:13; Deuteronomy 21:22, 23.)

  But the quotations the Society makes contain a refutation of its claims. A cross of wood is certainly "wood cut and ready for use, . . . timber, etc. . . . piece of wood, log, beam, post . . . stake on which criminals were impaled." And the definition "of live wood, tree" obviously has nothing to do with a stake or cross, so this definition is irrelevant, despite the Society's references to several Bible translations. So nothing in its quotation of Liddell and Scott refutes the notion that Jesus died on a cross.

  Furthermore, the Society's quotation is, as usual, incomplete and a misrepresentation of what its source reference said. I'll start with the above quotation from the Reasoning book and fill in a few blanks from Liddell and Scott:

  I. . . wood cut and ready for use, firewood, timber, etc. . . . ship-timber . . . logs cut square . . . in plural, also, the wood-market . . . II. in singular, piece of wood, log, beam, post; once in Homer, . . . spoon made of fig wood . . . of the Trojan horse, . . . : hence anything made of wood, as, 2. cudgel, club . . . an instrument of punishment, a. wooden collar, put on the neck of the prisoner, . . . or, b. stocks, in which the feet were confined, . . . d. gallows, . . . i.e, if one must be hanged, at least let it be on a noble tree, . . . in NT, of the cross, Acts 5:30, 10:39. e. stake on which criminals were impaled . . . bench, table, especially money-changer's table, . . . front bench of the Athenian theatre . . . the Hypocratic bench . . . III. of live wood, tree, . . . IV. of persons, blockhead . . . of a stubborn person, . . .

  Clearly then, Liddell and Scott's Lexicon allows that either "stake" or "cross" can be a meaning for the Greek word xylon. The Watchtower Society's claims, and its misrepresentation of this source reference, are simply the usual lies.

  The poster who calls himself "scholar" recently claimed that Liddell and Scott's Lexicon also verified the Society's claim about the true meaning of stauros. He actually claimed that this reference gave stauros a primary meaning of "stake". But the Lexicon does not give "stauros" a primary or secondary meaning. Rather, it lists two definitions as being of equal weight.

  The first one shows these meanings:

  "upright pale or stake" and "piles driven in to serve as a foundation"

  The second one shows these meanings:

  cross, as the instrument of crucifixion, Diodorus Siculus.2.18, Matthew 27.40, Plutarchus 2.554a; epi ton stauros apagesthai Lucianus.de Morte Peregrini 34 . . . its form was represented by the Greek letter T, Lucianus Judicium Vocalium 12.

  So "scholar's" claim is a lie, and since he obviously gets his information from the Society, it further proves that JW apologists are liars.

  A bit of background for the above reference: Diodorus Siculus was a Greek historian who wrote a massive history circa 40 B.C. Plutarchus (biographer and author of Plutarch's Lives) lived from 46 to at least 119 A.D. Lucianus (or Lucian of Samosata) was a popular middle eastern writer (possibly Syrian) who lived from about 125 to 180 A.D. So it's clear that, according to Liddell and Scott, writers just a little earlier and a little later than the New Testament writers used stauros with the meaning of "cross", not "upright stake".

  AlanF
• 

  Leolaia

  How many misrepresentations have the Society made on the subject of the cross? A list would have to include the following:

  • That the Imperial Bible Dictionary supports the Society's view that stauros "meant merely an upright stake" and only later on "came to be used for an execution stake having a crosspiece".
  • That Lidell & Scott's lexicon supports the view that xulon indicates that Jesus' cross was a simple stake.
  • That the Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture claims that the manner of Peter's death (=crucifixion) is not indicated in John 21.
  • That Livy used crux to only mean a simple stake.
  • That Lucian used the verbal form of stauros (and implcitly, stauros itself) to refer to impalement on a simple stake, and not crucifixion on a two-beamed cross.

  This of course does not include the many simply incorrect and false statements the Society has made on the matter.