Thank you leolaia for taking the time to answer my question but I do have 2 more sprung from having read the info you provided me with.
1/ from what you said your saying stake is the main way they could have refered to stauros but it could also be used for cross? because no other specific word for cross is given at the time? but you also say this word was used for many ways that romans executed prisoners, what proof do we have that in jesus's case it was a cross not a stake? ( your use of tau is intersting btw) or were all prisoners at jesus's time been confirmed as always been executed on a cross form of stake? I did look up more thoroughly the cross stauros point after your info and found this site, although looking at homepage it might be another JW site i'm unsure but it does gives illustrations:S can you tell me if their observations are on the whole correct aboutexecution crosses that where possibilities?
Methods of Crucifixion
At this point it is important to understand that crucifixions in ancient Rome may actually have employed more than one method. According to Wayne Blank in an article titled Cross or Stake published on his website, Daily Bible Study, there were actually four types of crosses used during Roman crucifixions. Mr. Blank describes them as follows:
The "Latin Cross," or crux immissa, is the traditional cross that is most often portrayed in illustrations and in "crucifixes." It was generally assumed that because a sign was nailed to the post above Jesus (John 19:19), there must have been a section of upright post above the horizontal beam.
The "St. Anthony's Cross," or crux commissa, was actually the most commonly used cross by the Romans for crucifixions. The upright post, which was notched at the top, was already in place. The executed man was tied or nailed to the cross-section, which was then simply lifted up and set into the notch at the top of the upright post. From an engineering point of view, as a reader pointed out to me (thank you Bruce), this was probably the most quickly and easily assembled - and also the strongest, because the weight of the condemned man was drawing down directly into the notch, where it couldn't go anywhere, unlike the traditional cross that had the cross section fastened to the side of the post, which could much more easily pull away. And, since the condemned man hung down below the level of the horizontal beam, there was still plenty of room for a sign to be nailed above his head.
The "Greek Cross" had equal-length vertical and horizontal sections.
The "Saint Andrew's Cross," or crux decussata, was shaped like the letter X, with the two bottom legs set into the ground.
 |
As is clearly visible, each of these representations involves two beams to be used during Roman crucifixions. However, when it comes to Jesus’ crucifixion each of these methods clearly seem to contradict the Biblical record that states the Messiah was executed on a stauros (one beam). As was mentioned earlier stauros means “stake” not “cross.” This being the case, can one know for certain how Jesus was crucified? Although most professing Christians believe the Messiah died on a cross, a stronger case can be made that he actually died on an upright beam. There are two reasons to draw this conclusion. The first relates to the protocol involving how a “two beam” cross was carried to the execution site. The second relates to an event that occurred 1500 years prior to Jesus’ death. Let us examine the first point.
Bearing His Cross
One thing all authorities can agree on is that whatever was used to crucify the Messiah, its weight was truly great. Some scholars have estimated the weight of an entire two piece cross to be between 200 and 300 pounds. The main beam would weigh between 125 and 175 pounds with the cross beam bearing the balance of the weight. Furthermore, the victim who would die on such an instrument would only be required to carry the “tau” or cross beam, which alone weighed anywhere from 75 to 125 pounds (see: The Passion of Jesus Christ by Fr. William Saunders, Dean of the Notre Dame Graduate School of Christendom, as published in the Arlington Catholic Herald 1998). But why is this fact important in determining which method of crucifixion Jesus experienced? The answer: PLEANTY! And that answer is revealed in the Messiah’s own words.
The book of Matthew records a time when Jesus was preparing to send His disciples out to proclaim the gospel. When doing so He warned them of the impending persecution they would most assuredly face (Mt. 10:16-23). Jesus then made an extraordinary pronouncement that has gone unnoticed by the vast majority of Christians today. Jesus said:
And he that takes not his cross and follows after Me is not worthy of me (Mt. 10:38)
With these words, Jesus was declaring to His disciples that those who are called must be willing to accept ALL the potential persecution that comes with being His disciple. They must be willing to bear their “cross” (stauros).
But it is possible there was something even more compelling in the Messiah’s words. Something that may very well have declared that He knew His crucifixion would be on an upright beam (stauros). Consider the following: If Jesus was crucified on a literal two beam or “Tau cross”, He would have contradicted His own words. This is because He would only have taken up part of His cross as opposed to the entire instrument of His death. Does anyone honestly believe this is what He did? Furthermore, does anyone honestly believe Jesus was exhorting His followers to only bear part of their cross and to follow him. In other words, if the persecution gets too tough you don’t have to endure it because I only told you to bear part of your cross.
The gospel writers most assuredly declared that Jesus carried every ounce of the horrible object that would be used in His execution. The Messiah carried a stauros, and His words declare that truth. Furthermore, His words may have been more than simply an exhortation. They may actually have been consciously prophetic. In other words it is possible that Jesus was intentionally revealing the specific type of crucifixion He would go through. Although this is conjecture, it is very possible and some renderings of this verse bear this out. Consider the words of The Complete Jewish Bible.
And anyone who does not take up his execution-stake and follow me is not worthy of me. (Matthew 10:38)
2/ secondly given the importance that the Cross has in modern Christianity wouldn't they have taken time to have refered to it more detailed in form than to casually refer to it, instead taking time to use more detail into how he died and the resurrection? (this might be an unfair question but I am meaning in looking at the language they do certainly spend not much time on the instrument used to kill him using as I think you have showed a commmon word that can denote just the general execution romans used?)
