Cross quote Mar. 1, 08 WT (page 2)

heathen

A steeple is a phallic symbol the cross or ankh was the pagan symbol for eternal life long before christ. Jesus was executed because the jews wanted him hung on a tree not because the Romans wanted to do it.

jwfacts

That the Watchtower is able to find a couple of sources to support its view does not prove it correct, considering that it igores thousands of sources that show Jesus died on a cross. In the 19th century several Protestant ministers, such as Bullinger, author of the Companion Bible proposed Jesus died on a stake, and it is from them that Rutherford got his ideas opposing the cross.

It never means two pieces of timber placed across one another at any angle, but always of one piece alone.

The poor scholarship of the Companion Bible is highlighted by the above comment, which is blatantly wrong.

See the following article explaining why the evidence points to Jesus dieing on a cross.

lrkr

But the next jump in logic is the best....

"Therefore, if you believe that Jesus was executed on 2 pieces of timber, you are a pagan and deserving of death at Armageddon."

(That's the part thats hard to take.)

Leolaia

It is crappy research.

Bear in mind that it was written a hundred years ago (like the other outdated authorities that the Society quotes from to support its view on the cross), but even back then the author should have had all the classical and patristic sources at his disposal that the 16th-century scholar Justus Lipsius had in his exhaustive survey of crucifixion. The author apparently is either oblivious of these sources, or intentionally ignores them.

Here are some of its errors:

The xulon, which generally denotes a piece of a dead log of wood, or timber, for fuel or for any other purpose. It is not like dendron, which is used of a living, or green tree, as in Matthew 21:8; Revelation 7:1, 3; 8:7; 9:4 , etc. As this latter word xulon is used for the former stauros, it shows us that the meaning of each is exactly the same.

The implication that xulon is not used for a living, green tree is false, as Genesis 1:11, 29, 2:9, 16, 3:1-2 LXX, Exodus 9:25, 10:5, 12 LXX, Deuteronomy 16:21 LXX, Judges 6:26 LXX, Job 30:4 LXX, Psalm 1:3, 96:12,105:33 LXX, Proverbs 3:18 LXX, Canticles 2:3 LXX, Isaiah 7:2, 55:12 LXX, Jeremiah 2:20 LXX, Ezekiel 17:24 LXX, Joel 2:22 LXX, Revelation 2:7, 22:2, and many other texts (not to mention secular writings ones) show. It is also nonsense to claim that the "meaning of [stauros and xulon] is exactly the same". Xulon was not a general term for crucifixion, and its use was limited to Jewish and Christian writers (rather than secular writers), who used the word because they associated the current practice of crucifixion with the law in Deuteronomy 21:22-23 LXX (which is even quoted explicitly in Galatians 3:13-14). In that source text, xulon referred to a literal, living tree on which people were hanged. Since the law on the disposal of hanged bodies was believed to apply to crucifixion as well (which the Dead Sea Scrolls independently attest), crucifixion was colloquially referred to as a hanging of people on trees. The use of the word reflects influence from Deuteronomy 21:22-23 and does not imply the kind of shape the instrument had, which was variable in any case.

Our English word "cross" is the translation of the Latin crux; but the Greek stauros no more means a crux than the word "stick" means a "crutch".

This is misleading. It is true that stauros could refer to other things than the instrument used in Roman crucifixion (which in Latin was referred to as crux), but stauros was the main word in Greek that referred to it and crucifixion itself, and crux was reguarly used to translate this use of stauros in Latin (cf. the Vulgate). The statement above is like saying that "doctor" no more means "physician" than the word "stick" means a "crutch" (since other people than physicians could be called "doctor"), ignoring the fact that "doctor" more often refers to physicians than to other kinds of doctors.

Homer uses the word stauros of an ordinary pole or stake, or a single piece of timber. And this is the meaning and usage of the word throughout the Greek classics.

Homer (8th century BC) is the earliest of all the classical writers and used the word stauros before crucifixion was even invented, so quoting him is hardly relevant to the meaning of stauros in the 1st century AD. Thus Homer's use of the word stauros is most definitely not the same "throughout the Greek classics", as later writers began to use the word to refer to the device used in Persian, then later Punic, then later Roman crucifixions. It was the Roman variety of crucifixion that commonly employed a crossbeam (patibulum), as it developed partly from pre-Republican patibulum-bearing punishment (in which a slave had to carry a patibulum throughout a city before being put to death). Chariton and Plutarch from the first century AD referred to this practice, and writing in Greek, they used the word stauros. Other writers of "Greek classics" (see below) also clearly described the stauros as including a crossbeam.

It never means two pieces of timber placed across one another at any angle, but always of one piece alone.

Absolutely false. If this were the case, the satirist Lucian (Lis Consonantium, 12) wouldn't have said that the tyrants took the Greek letter Tau as a model, "imitating his shape, fashioning similar-looking timbers to crucify people on them, even naming the vile device after" the letter, i.e. stauros, and he also wouldn't have said that a stauros would involve the hands being outstretched across and nailed separately (Prometheus, 1.19, 2.3-8). And Artemidorus (Oneirocritica 2.53) wouldn't have said that the stauros resembles the mast of a ship. And since the Romans were using the crossbeam in crucifixions since the third century BC (cf. Plautus, Seneca, Tacitus, etc.) and stauros was the Greek word that referred to the execution device used by the Romans (which varied its shape widely), what reason is there for supposing that the word stauros "never" could have referred to the device if the executioner decided to include a patibulum? None is offered at all. It is like saying that "car" could only refer to two-door automobiles; four-door automobiles could "never" be called "cars". It's not as if a cross was an altogether different device (with a different term referring to it) if it happened to include a crossbeam. If stauros only referred to crosses that lacked a patibulum, what was the Greek word that referred to those that did? There was no other word that had this meaning.

There is nothing in the Greek of the New Testament even to imply two pieces of timber.

Another unsupported claim. But in fact, John 19:17 strongly suggests that a patibulum was used because the verse describes the recognizably Roman practice of forcing victims to carry the patibulum (crossbeam) prior to execution (cf. Plautus, Carbonaria, fr. 2, Mostellaria, 55-57; Chariton, Chaereas and Callirhoe, 4.2.6-7; Plutarch, Moralia, De Sera Numinus Vindicta 554 A; Artemidorus Daldianus, Oneirocritica 2.53-56). Less clear passages that might suggest two pieces of timber also include Matthew 27:37, John 20:25, and 21:18-19. Some of the earliest writings outside of the NT, including Barnabas and Justin Martyr, quite clearly depicted Jesus' stauros as including a crossbeam.

These crosses were used as symbols of the Babylonian sun-god, , and are first seen on a coin of Julius Cæsar, 100 - 44 B.C., and then on a coin struck by Cæsar's heir (Augustus), 20 B.C.4 On the coins of Constantine the most frequent symbol is .... (blah blah blah)

The rest of the appendix is devoted to the completely irrelevant issue of the use of cruciform shapes (i.e. two intersecting lines) as a religious symbol. That has nothing to do the meaning or translation of stauros in the NT, and of course this shape is used as a symbol -- as all basic, simple shapes are utilized as symbols in cultures around the world.

Anyway, I find it interesting that the Society cannot cite anything more recent on this subject than books written a hundred years ago. The way the Society cites the Companion Bible appendix is also misleading. The phrase "Oxford University's Companion Bible" gives the impression that it was produced by scholars at Oxford University, whereas the book was published by the university press but put together by Anglican theologian E. W. Bullinger and his associates and published posthumously (at least as far as the revelant section is concerned). Indeed, it doesn't appear that Bullinger wrote the passage in question but Charles Welch, who expressed similar views in his own writings in the 1920s. The appendices show a definite sectarian slant (endorsing among other things annihilationism, Darbyesque dispensationalism, and universalism), and Welch in particular was associated with the Plymouth Brethren who had similar views -- including an intense dislike of Catholicism and traditional Christian elements that may have Catholic and "pagan" origins. The Society has widely used another Plymouth Brethren publication, The Two Babylons, by Alexander Hislop, to prove that the cross, Easter, Christmas, the papacy, etc. etc. etc. is of pagan origin. So it is pretty clear that the author had an axe to grind, as the view expressed in the appendix happened to conform to the Brethren's stance on such things. But neither Welch nor Bullinger appears to have originally wrote much of what is in the Companion Bible appendix. Much of it is plagiarized word-for-word from the book The Non-Christian Cross, published by John Denham Parsons in 1896. Perhaps Parsons was responsible for writing the appendix, but more likely this is one more sign of the intellectual laziness of the passage.

WTWizard

This is another attempt on the part of the Tower to frustrate those doing objective research on the subject. They are known for so many other mistranslations (on purpose) for the purpose of furthering the cult that their position is not to be trusted. I am sure that, buried somewhere in that specious writing, are fallacies galore that bury the real truth. And, if they have little knowledge of Greek, they are in no position to determine with authority whether it was a stake or a cross.

To me, it makes absolutely no difference. I have crosses (bought as Christmas decoration) solely to slap the organization in the face, without any regard for whether or not it is accurate. Besides, the proper use of the cross is a reminder that Jesus died to set us free, whether or not it was actually a cross or a pole. In that usage, I find it quite proper to display a cross. And, if you happen to like them for decorative purposes or to definitively identify yourself as no longer a witless, I see no problem in displaying them even if you do not believe in what they stand for.

LouBelle

Honestly it doesn't matter to me whether or not he died on a cross, a log, was shot, was stabbed....he died - and THAT is important. I can't remember who started this thread but clearly as you can see there are some here that DO have reasoning capacity (Leolaia - you do fabulous research & I always enjoy reading your posts)

eby

Thank you Jwfacts, Leolaia, and all.

I heard my husband reading this quote from the WT out loud. Always suspicious of WT quotes I thought, "This is too good to be true."

He thought this was a great quote and planned to use it in field service. After our discussion I don't think he will use it.

Yes, Leo, the mention of Oxford University seems to give the quote unwarranted authority.

eby

Cross quote Mar. 1, 08 WT