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
First of all, much of the critical evidence does comes from the first century itself...such as Seneca, Philo of Alexandria, Tacitus, Suetonius, Chariton, Epictetus, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Plutarch (who actually lived AD 46-127), etc. Furthermore, works from earlier than the first century are also very important because they confirm that certain forms of crucifixion had already come into existence by the time of Jesus, and that usage of the words stauros and crux from the second century BC onward was the same as in the later period....hence Plautus especially was very important, and Homer is useful for attesting the usage of stauros from a time BEFORE Roman crucifixion came into existence. These sources show clearly that Roman crucifixion (with a patibulum) was well in use before the time of Jesus. Since the Society claims that the word meanings changed sometime later, this is a very important fact. Finally, sources from the second century AD, such as Artemidorus and Lucian, are only several decades out from the time the gospels were written and certainly belong to the same "era"; these are significant sources for their explicitness, and they are perfectly consistent with earlier sources. Not even the Society considers Lucian "too late". Furthermore, since Barnabas, Justin Martyr, and Irenaeus were writing about Jesus' cross specifically, their statements are also highly significant.
In short, restricting yourself to only texts from the first century AD itself is to be highly selective of the evidence.
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.
This is pretty silly. Describing a form of contemporary execution as it existed right at that time, and either contemporary with the NT writings or only a number of decades later is in no way comparable to textual transmission over centuries. Artemidorus and Lucian were writing about what was happening in their own day! Everyone who read their works at the time knew what a typical stauros looked like. They weren't writing about legendary things in the distant past. And already from the third century BC crosses were already being described with patibulums. And in the first century AD they were being described with patibulums. What was being described in the second century AD is the same as what was described in the first century AD which was the same as what was being described in the third century BC. There is zero evidence of any "distortion of the facts"; this is instead something you stipulate simply to discredit otherwise valuable pieces of evidence.
You've got to be joking! He/she provides a lot of quotes from the WT, Bible dictionaries and historians!
I was referring to the other webpage.
I know any quote from the WT could be "taken out of context, but some of those are obviously not "favorite WT quotes."
I'm not sure if I understand you here. The Society has misrepresented Lucian and Livy, and on more than one occasion.
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.
Well, this issue is more one of translation choices than lexicography. "Torture stake" is clearly inadequate as Beduhn recognizes, because it was used not just to torture people but to execute them. So "execution stake" would be better. But the English language here forces the translator to choose between "execution stake" or "execution cross" (or "cross", since this term in English already has this sense), because "cross" in English usage implies a shape. Not so with the original Greek and Latin words. In the case of stauros, the earlier etymological sense was simply "stake" and had nothing to do with execution because crucifixion as a form of execution had not yet been introduced. By the time we reach the Common Era, stauros was used most often to refer to "the wooden apparatus used in Roman execution", and since its referrent embraced different forms, so did the word stauros refer to crucifixion in its various forms, just as the word "car" today can refer to a four-door sedan or a two-door Volkswagon Beetle or a stretch limousine...they are all "cars". Since the Romans frequently added their own native patibulum to this form of execution, and since they had been doing this since the third century BC, stauros would have commonly referred to two-beamed crosses since this was the term that was recruited to denote "the wooden apparatus used in Roman execution". As a linguist, it is quite clear to me that by the first century AD that stauros no longer only had its original, etymological sense of "stake" (that is, without implying a form of executing people alive on an apparatus), tho of course such a sense was still used. Translation choices have as a priority conveying the sense of the original language in another language, and since the English words differ semantically from the Greek words, one has the liberty of making different choices since no single word fully captures the sense of the original. Beduhn may object to "cross" because the English word implies a "shape" and not all Roman crosses had this implied shape; the patibulum was frequently used, but not always. The most accurate phrase would be "the wooden apparatus used in Roman execution" but that would be a mouthful each time it is used! His preferred "stake" better captures the etymological sense of the word and corresponds to at least one portion of the cross that was always used in Roman crucifixion, but the way the Society construes a "torture stake," it is also overly determinative....for it would demand the exclusion of the patibulum from the word's real-world referrent, which in fact the device commonly included it.
Since the patibulum was a common (if not typical, if one goes by Seneca, Artemidorus, and Lucian) feature of the apparatus, and especially since gospel accounts allude to the bearing of the cross before crucifixion, I see "cross" overall as a better translation choice than "stake". Since the Society overtly claims that the "torture stake" did not have a patibulum, this neologism of theirs has a lexical sense within the JW community that excludes the shape of "cross". Overall, the rendering is not technically "wrong", just misleading. Since the original Greek word did not imply a shape, one can certainly use a term that pertains more to its function (such as "execution stake"); it is when such a term is used to explicitly exclude a very common, if not likely form of the instrument that it can be misleading.
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.
The webpage (the second one) provides full extracts of secondary sources that furnish data unfavorable to the Society's view and much of the material, while descriptive of crucifixion itself, does not bear on this specific question. Much of it, such as the lengthy discussion of Christian art, is entirely beyond the scope of this question. Furthermore, the author does not do much to make sense of the mass of information, but in the end falls back on his/her pre-existing views.
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.
It's not "convenient", it's what is attested. The meaning change was not primarily "Can stauros refer to a two-beamed cross?", as if the shape had anything to do with it, but the function of the device. The meaning shift took place when the Greeks began to use the word stauros to refer to the "apparatus used in Roman execution". If this device came to include a patibulum, then stauros would have referred to it as a matter of course. Sources from the second century BC onward show that stauros was the default term used to refer to Roman crucifixion. There wasn't a separate term that was used just to refer to two-beamed crosses. It didn't matter what the shape was. Stauros was the name for that vile apparatus and method of gruesome execution, no matter its shape. Going back to my "car" example, the meaning of the word "car" does not change simply because the new 2006 Lexis models roll out of production, with new gadgets and features. Sure, the form of the referrent has changed, but it's still a "car".
What is instead convenient is the Society's insistence that the meaning of stauros vaguely changed "later" than first or even second century AD...they even link it to Constantine on occasion. This is flatly contrary to the evidence. The primary change in meaning occurred when the word began to refer to a particular kind of execution. It continued to refer to this instrument no matter what bells and whistles the Romans wanted to add to their device, or whatever variations it took.
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."
I agree with the Society here....and I came to same conclusion in the original version of my essay. The archaeological evidence of this single victim is ambiguous and does not indicate how the arms are positioned. This is thus not evidence for or against the Society's position....it simply is not relevant evidence to the question.
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.
Why? Depictions of crucifixion continued long after Constantine, and certainly historical knowledge of the practice also continued for some time.
But, his hands are free in this picture, aren't they?
This is not intended as a historical reflection on the event; clearly the gospels do not present his arms as free. This is a religious portrayal of the crucified Jesus, possibly intending some symbolic or artistic meaning...My point is that he is not depicted the way you stated.
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.
The author does not systematically assess the evidence to conclude that the "evidence doesn't match up for a cross". The author says "I believe it is too hard to to tell what he died on" and "I think the Tau is a good alternative -- something I have never considered before", but leaves it for someone else to prove to him/her that it was not a simple stake.
On the site, the person explains that "crucify" doesn't signify the shape, but means "torture."
LOL, that's what I've been saying throughout all my posts on this subject, that the original terms do not signify a shape. That's precisely my point! So why talk about a "shift in meaning" that pertains to a particular shape?
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"
Yes, the meaning of the term pertained to the "nature and purpose of this instrument". But did it often include a crossbeam? You bet! That is how it is described from the third century BC onward.
The sources are quite numerous in evidence against the cross.
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!**)
Of course the furca was "partially equivalent to crux", it was another word for the crossbeam (see Plautus and Plutarch onward). That the whole cross itself could be called a furca is evidence of the frequency with which crosses included the patibulum.
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"
This was already discussed above. The crux commonly INCLUDED a patibulum, or in other words had one attached. See Plautus, Seneca, etc. etc. Remember to always consider the primary sources first before relying on secondary sources.
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?)
Since the third century BC! But since you disqualify earlier sources as being "too early", the question is moot. I already went through most of the evidence originally in my thread, why not read it over again?
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.
The author is conjecturing that the cross was probably venerated at an early date. The earliest Christian sources outside the NT do accord great symbolic significance to Jesus' cross, explicitly described as two-beamed.
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!!)
What does this have to do with the evidence for Roman execution?
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?)
Again, this statement about the usage of carved crosses in the post-Nicene era has little to do with Roman crucifixion or traditions about Jesus' crucifixion, of which there are voluminous statements on the matter in the pre-Nicene era. The Society frequently confuses the use of the cross symbol with traditions about Roman execution itself.
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!)
Again, like the previous example, this pertains to aniconism not crucifixion traditions.
"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 patibulum varied its shape as well. It was shaped in such a manner especially in the Republican period when it was used more to humiliation so that prisoners would use it as a yoke to carry wagons and carts behind them. When it was fused with crucifixion, a simple plank was often used as references to the Tau-shaped cross suggest. Again, the issue is whether there was a patibulum included in crucifixion...
The Vine's dictionary has more than one definition of it, but admittingly points to definition #2 as a stake.
Vine's lexicon contains clear errors on the subject, and the dictionary seems to reflect a Plymouth Brethren viewpoint (cf. the dispensationalism). My thread goes into this in more detail.
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!
Well, of course, each matter should be examined individually. Which is what I did in my essay.
Cheers!