by libra_spirit 8 Replies latest watchtower bible
I hope you wonderfull people can help me out here.
I have a friend, now exJW, doing research on the cross. I remember reading some excellent stuff on this site a few years back on this. I can't seem to locate the older posts about the cross research. I do remember it was excellent stuff.
Can anyone help me out.
Thanks everyone,
Dave
I'm sorry I can't help you on the link to the thread on the cross. I do remember from that thread (or another one) that at the time Jesus was crucified there were 2 ways the Romans crucified.
1) On a cross.
2) On a stake.
I have not found anything in the bible that states which way the Romans chose for Jesus.
The best written work on this topic is Martin Hengel's Crucifixion in the Ancient World.
Here's an interesting online essay:
http://www.religiousstudies.uncc.edu/jdtabor/crucifixion.html
Euripides
Here is a whole lot of stuff I have saved for my own study/research on crucifixion. I think you'll find it interesting, relevant and very comprehensive. Their are websites for looking at the sources if you want. Good luck.
======================================================================================================
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, unbeknownst 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."
===========================================================
http://www.frugalsites.net/jesus/crucifixion.htm
(http://www.freeminds.org/doctrine/cross.htm)
Below are 6 cites taken from 12 in the Bible in which the word crucify (verb: Crucify to kill by affixing to a cross) is specifically used:
Matthew 27:31
And after that they had mocked him, they took the robe off from him, and put his own raiment on him, and led him away to crucify him.Mark 15:13
And they cried out again, Crucify him.Mark 15:20
And when they had mocked him, they took off the purple from him, and put his own clothes on him, and led him out to crucify him.Mark 15:27
And with him they crucify two thieves; the one on his right hand, and the other on his left.John 19:6
When the chief priests therefore and officers saw him, they cried out, saying, Crucify him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Take ye him, and crucify him: for I find no fault in himTo the Hebrews 6:6
If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.Crucifixion:
Crucify is a verb meaning to kill by crucifixion. Crucifixion is explained below by a scholar and student of Biblical matters and supported by archaeolgical and historical fact:Roman crucifixion was a gruesome form of capital punishment. The victim suffered excruciating pain for hours, even days, before the rigors of the cross finally snuffed out his life. In its most common form, the cross consisted of two pieces of wood. The upright, called the stipes, was permanently fixed in the ground (1). The crosspiece, called the patibulum, was carried to the site of execution by the condemned man (2). This task was in itself an ordeal, since the patibulum was a stout beam weighing more than a hundred pounds (3). After the crucifixion, the crosspiece was taken down and removed from the site, perhaps as a precaution against thievery (4). Literary sources suggest that the familiar picture of Jesus' cross is inaccurate. It is likely that the crosspiece rested on the upright, instead of being fastened to it at some distance below the top. That is, the cross of Jesus probably had the shape of a capital "T" (5).
In 1968, archaeologists discovered the remains of a Jew who had been crucified during the era of Christ (6). It was possible from the skeletal evidence to determine exactly how the man had been fastened to a cross. The new information, debunking many old guesses about the method of crucifixion, left no doubt that this form of punishment was hideously and cruelly efficient. A crude iron spike from five to seven inches long had been driven through each wrist (7). Also, after both feet with heels and toes together had been turned sideways against the cross, a third spike had been driven through a board and then through both heels (8). When the man hung on his cross, the lower part of his body must have been twisted to one side. (Josh McDowell, The Resurrection Factor (San Bernardino, Calif.: Here's Life Publishers, 1981), 45. (http://www.uncc.edu/jdtabor/crucifixion.html)
======================================================================
According to the 1975 Yearbook the doctrine did not result from careful biblical analysis, but rather from Judge Rutherford's dislike of the cross symbol. Originally, the Bible Students under Charles T. Russell accepted the cross as a valid Christian emblem. In fact, Russell incorporated it in his symbol of the Millennial Kingdom - a cross placed inside a crown. This "cross and crown" symbol appeared on Watchtower covers since 1891, and was represented on a plaque hanging in Russell's personal study.
1 The Bible Students even wore a pin of this shape. Carey W. Barber, now a member of the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses, described it: "It was a badge really, with a wreath of laurel leaves as the border and within the wreath was a crown with a cross running through it on an angle. It looked quite attractive and was our idea of what it meant to take up our ?cross? and follow Christ Jesus in order to be able to wear the crown of victory in due time."
2 Rutherford however did not think it was so "attractive." He perceived the cross as nothing more than a pagan symbol, as a long-time Witness recalled: "This to Brother Rutherford's mind was Babylonish and should be discontinued. He told us that when we went to the people's homes and began to talk, that was the witness in itself."
3 It took Rutherford eight years to purge the Bible Students of the cross. His first move against it occurred in 1928, when he instructed his followers at a Detroit convention to discard the "objectionable" and "unnecessary" jewelry.
4 Then in 1931 the emblem was removed from the Watchtower covers. At that point the cross symbol became non-biblical, non-Christian, and ungodly - and was relegated to the forbidden trappings of Satan's organization. The Witnesses however still believed that Jesus was executed on a traditional cross. This contradiction no doubt vexed Rutherford, and he saw the need to revise his assumptions about the Passion. Therefore, without much fanfare, he presented his new view in the book Riches. On page 27, he wrote: "Jesus was crucified, not on a cross of wood, such as exhibited in many images and pictures, and which images are made and exhibited by men; Jesus was crucified by nailing his body to a tree."
5 It seems that Rutherford saw nothing wrong (as does the Society today) with using the word "crucify" to denote impalement. Therefore, according to the Society's own account, scholarship really had no-thing to do with its adoption of the "torture stake" doctrine.
==================================================================
The current WT objections to the cross are:
1. The Biblical Greek doesn't suggest a cross, but rather a "pole" or "stake."
2. The cross was a pagan symbol later adopted by the "apostate" church.
3. Archaeology proves that Jesus died on an upright stake rather than a cross.
4. The cross is to be shunned rather than mentioned or displayed.
Let's consider the answer to these objections one by one:
JW: THE GREEK "stauros" DOESN'T REFER TO A CROSS.
As the years went by, "proof" was supplied by the WT to substantiate its position on the cross. In 1950 with the release of the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, the appendix (pages 768-771) first argues that the Greek words stauros (Matt. 10:38) and xylon (Acts 5:30) do not mean a cross, and stated that these words only mean an upright stake without a crossbeam, and that there is no proof to the contrary.
The Greek stauros has the primary meaning of a pole or stake, as the WT points out. What they don't mention is that the word often refers to more complex constructions, such as the cross. The Latin word crux usually translated "cross," was also at times used to refer to a mere stake. What the WT specifically ignores is that the Romans DID execute prisoners on crosses--an issue they are careful to sidestep in their presentation. The horizontal bar of such crosses was called the patibulum, and the slaves to be executed were customarily made to carry the patibulum to the place of execution. (Seneca, De Vita Beata 19:3; Epistola 101:12; Tacitus, Historiae, IV, 3)2
Authoritative lexicons give the definition of stauros as a "stake sunk into the earth in an upright position; a crosspiece was often attached to its upper part."3
Xylon, like stauros, can also be used to refer to a cross, a fact carefully side-stepped by the WT in their effort to prove their point. They thus fail to prove anything with regard to stauros and xylon. Therefore we must look to the historical record for more decisive proof on the method of crucifixion.
JW: "THE CROSS WAS A PAGAN SYMBOL LATER ADOPTED BY THE CHURCHES"
Whatever usage of the cross existed before or after the time of Christ is irrelevant to the issue. Additionally, there is no conclusive evidence that 1st century Jews or Christians looked upon the crucifixion cross as a symbol of false worship. It was used as a means to an end--the punishment or death of a criminal. Symbols mean different things at different times. Furthermore, Jesus did not choose his instrument of death.
While the Catholic church may have later capitalized on the imagery of the cross, and some people even today regard it as an idol, that does not affect the earlier, Biblical usage of the cross as a symbol of the gospel (see the fourth objection). Evidence reveals that as early as the first century there were Christians who used the cross as a symbol for Christianity. The Romans even mocked them by depicting Jesus as an ass on a cross (see appendix for illustration). Apparently the cross did not readily remind the first century Christians of previous pagan meanings, but stood for Christ and his message as far as believers and even non-believers were concerned. Today it is much the same. People usually consider the cross a sign of Christianity.
JW: ARCHEOLOGY SHOWS THAT JESUS DIED ON A STAKE, NOT A CROSS."
In the 1950 and 1969 editions of the New World Translation (in their appendix), the WT reproduces one of sixteen woodcut illustrations by the 16th century writer Justus Lipsius, who authored a work called De Cruce Liber Primus, Secundus and Tres. They reproduce his picture of a man impaled on an upright stake, failing to mention that Lipsius produced fifteen other illustrations (most of which picture various crucifixions on crosses). The WT makes the statement: "This is the manner in which Jesus was impaled." They then refer to an article in the Catholic Ecclesiastical Review of 1920 that states that the cross was not used until after A.D. 312 as the sign of the crucifixion. 4
The 1950 New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures (Appendix, p.770) states: "Rather than consider the torture stake upon which Jesus was impaled a relic to be worshiped, the Jewish Christians like Simon Peter would consider it to be an abominable thing." They then quote Paul's reference to Deut. 21:22,23 at Galatians 3:13 to prove that the cross was an abomination. They continue, "Hence the Jewish Christians would hold as accursed and hateful the stake upon which Jesus had been executed." The NWT makes its final point in stating,
The evidence is, therefore, completely lacking that Jesus Christ was crucified on two pieces of timber placed at a right angle. We refuse to add anything to God's written Word by inserting the pagan cross into the inspired Scriptures, but render stauros and xylon according to the simplest meanings. . . . The passing of time and further archaeological discoveries will be certain to prove its correctness. Even now the burden rests upon all who contend for the religious tradition to prove that Jesus died on more than a simple stake. (p.771)
In 1969 the Kingdom Interlinear translation's appendix contained much the same information, as does the 1984 New World Translation Reference Bible and the 1985 revision of the Kingdom Interlinear. The 1985 edition adds comments by Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words that supports the view that pagans before the time of Christ used the symbol T representing the Babylonian god Tammuz, and that this practice apparently influenced the Catholic Church in the issue of cross worship. Vine claims the Catholic ecclesiastical system adapted the symbol of the cross as a holdover from paganism.
The most amazing thing of all is that the WT could make a statement such as "evidence is completely lacking" that Jesus was crucified on a cross, when the VERY BOOK they use as "proof" to support their claims SAYS JESUS DIED ON A CROSS! One of the woodcuts of Lipsius not mentioned by the WT, shows a crucifixion on a cross. A partial translation of the Latin text alongside this woodcut says:
In the Lord's cross there were four pieces of wood, the upright beam, the crossbar, a tree trunk (piece of wood) placed below, and the title (inscription) placed above.
Also they hand down (this account by) Irenaeus: "The construction of the cross has five ends, two on the vertical and two on the horizontal, and one in the middle where the person attached with nails rested." (De Cruce Liber Secundus, pg. 661)
The earlier (1950 and 1969) editions of the NWT, after referring to Lipsius' picture of a man on an upright stake stated, "This is the manner in which Jesus was impaled." They thereby attempted to convey the idea that Lipsius' book was proving their point. Since then the exposure of their dishonesty induced them to leave this statement out of the 1984 and 1985 versions of the NWT; but they STILL use Lipsius' illustration to make their point, while failing to tell the real story! They are intentionally avoiding the truth.
Furthermore, their reference to the Catholic Ecclesiastical Review (1920) is outdated, as there have been further archaeological finds that indicate otherwise, such as mentioned in Biblical Archaeology Review of Jan./Feb. 1985.
This brings up another very embarrassing issue for the WT?that of recent archaeological finds. In the earlier editions (1950 and 1969) of the NWT they had said, "The passing of time and further archaeological discoveries will be certain to prove its correctness. . . ." Why did they omit this statement from the 1984 and 1985 versions of the New World Translation? Precisely because of the more recent archaeological finds! While the WT has made use of obscure and long-outdated sources in an attempt to prove their point, the bulk of the historical finds as well as the most recent excavations reveal substantial proof for the traditional crucifixion story, as long held by the churches.
JW: "THE BIBLE DOESN'T SAY THAT JESUS DIED ON A CROSS."
There is even greater evidence than Lipsius' works for the traditional crucifixion story, though, and this evidence comes from the Bible itself. When Jesus reappeared to his disciples in his resurrected body, he still bore the marks left by the nails in his hands. The disciples were afraid that this was a spirit form rather than their Lord in the flesh. Luke 24:37 tells us that "they were startled and frightened and thought that they were seeing a spirit." Jesus spoke up:
Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have. (Luke 24:38,39)
The WT, incidentally, would have us believe that Jesus WAS a spirit at that time and actually DID just materialize a body so as to comfort them. How much better to believe the Word for what it says, that it WAS Jesus' body, and his hands still had the marks of the nails.
This brings up the most conclusive passage of all, which reveals that Christ was not killed as the WT portrays in their publications. The apostle John tells us that Thomas, who was not there when Jesus first appeared to the rest, refused to believe it was actually Jesus (he thought it must have been a spirit, too!). He told the others,
Unless I see in His HANDS the imprint of THE NAILS, and put my finger into the place of THE NAILS, and put my hand into His side, I will not believe. (John 20:25, emphasis added)
Note that Thomas knew there was more than one nail that punctured Jesus' hands. Yet, the WT always pictures Jesus as having ONE NAIL through both hands! When Jesus reappeared for the sake of Thomas, he showed him his hands so that Thomas could see and believe (John 20:26,27).
Apparently feeling that they needed to respond to this challenge, a "Questions From The Readers" article appeared in The Watchtower of April 1, 1984 (p. 31). They cloud the issue with a partial quote from The Cyclopaedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature (which doesn't support their claim) in an effort to make it appear as a "waste of time" to speculate on how many nails Jesus was affixed with. (They are right: We don't know; but we do know that there were at least two in his hands!) Then they try and imply that Thomas was sloppy in his speech--saying that even though Thomas only mentions the nail holes in his hands, he might have been referring to the nails in Jesus' feet as well. The article concludes with the statement:
Thus, it is just not possible at this point to state with certainty how many nails were used. Any drawing of Jesus on the stake should be understood as artists' productions that offer merely a representation based on the limited facts that we have. Debate over such an insignificant detail should not be permitted to becloud the all-important truth that "we became reconciled to God through the death of his Son." Rom. 5:10.
It appears that since the evidence has swung against them, they are resorting to their old technique of accusing the opposition of what they themselves are guilty of. They are the ones that have made statements such as "evidence is lacking . . ." that Jesus died on a cross.
As usual, they shift the blame to cover themselves. Remember, they are the ones who accuse people of "false worship" for using the symbol of the cross. As far as Christians are concerned, the exact method of crucifixion is not a big issue. Rather, the emphasis that the Bible puts on the cross is the real issue!
JW: "THE TORTURE STAKE (cross) WAS SHAMEFUL AND SHOULDN'T BE GIVEN ATTENTION."
It is true that the Jews viewed execution by the cross as an accursed way to die, for it meant shame, and no hope for a resurrection. Similarly, the WT views the whole concept of Christ dying on a stake in a negative light. Note these statements in the Awake! magazine of Nov. 8, 1972:
How would you feel if one of your dearest friends was executed on false charges? Would you make a replica of the instrument of execution, say a hangman's noose or an electric chair? Would you kiss that replica, burn candles before it or wear it around your neck as an ornament? "Of course not," you may say.
To the Jews and the Romans the manner in which Jesus died was humiliating and shameful. He was executed like a criminal of the lowest sort, like the wrongdoers impaled alongside him. (Luke 23:32) His death therefore misrepresented him in the worst way possible. To Christians the instrument of execution itself would therefore have been something very repulsive. Venerating it would have meant glorifying the wrong deed committed on it - the murder of Jesus Christ. (p. 27)
The WT is again confusing the issue by classing those who "venerate" or worship a cross with those who consider the cross as a symbol of Christianity. Certainly there is no justification for worshiping before a cross or kissing it; but there IS justification for considering the cross as a symbol of Christianity.
The archeological evidence is good too:
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1991/9110fea1.asp
First one:
IN 1968 one of the greatest archaeological finds occurred. The description is given in "Anthropological Observations on the Skeletal Remains from Giv?at ha-Mivtar," written by N. Haas of the Department of Anatomy at
In an ossuary from burial caves at Giv?at ha-Mivtar in were found the remains of a man, aged 24-28, who had been crucified and died near the year A.D. 70. Though thousands upon thousands had been crucified in antiquity, this was the first time that archaeologists had discovered actual physical remains of a victim. The bones in the ossuary showed the man?s legs had been broken deliberately after the arms and legs had been nailed to a cross of olivewood . The single nail that had pierced the feet had penetrated the ankle bones and could not be extracted before burial.
"The whole of our interpretation concerning the position of the body on the cross may be described briefly as follows: The feet were joined almost parallel, both transfixed by the same nail at the heels, with the legs adjacent; the knees were doubled, the right one overlapping the left; the trunk was contorted; the upper limbs were stretched out, each stabbed by a nail in the forearm." (The emphasis is my own. It should also be pointed out that the article has photographs of the ossuary and of the bones .)
Another archeological find:
The Palatine crucifix is the oldest depiction of a crucifixion. It was uncovered by archaeologists more than a century ago on the Palatine Hill in . It is second-century graffiti scratched into a wall that was part of the imperial palace complex. It includes a caption--not by a Christian, but by someone taunting and deriding Christians and the crucifixions they underwent. It shows crude stick-figures of a boy reverencing his "God," who has the head of a jackass and is up on a cross with arms spread wide and with hands nailed to the crossbeam . Here we have a Roman sketch of a Roman crucifixion, and it is in the traditional cross shape.
-ithinkisee
That first paragraph was cut-off. It should say:
IN 1968 one of the greatest archaeological finds occurred. The description is given in "Anthropological Observations on the Skeletal Remains from Giv?at ha-Mivtar," written by N. Haas of the Department of Anatomy at Hebrew University. His article was published in the Israel Exploration Journal in 1970.
-ithinkisee
I think you might be referring to my paper on the subject, which one of these days I will adapt into a full-length post on this forum. For now, here are the highlights, which I post from time to time:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) The Romans did crucify prisoners and slaves in the first century with a two-beamed cross and the words crux and stauros did denote such an execution instrument (cf. Plautus, Lucian, Artemidorus, Seneca, Tacitus). The Society's repeated claim (1950 NWT, 6/22/1984 Awake!, 1984 Reference NWT) that Livy used crux to only denote impalement is totally without merit; I looked up every time Livy mentioned crux and he never was specific the way the Society claims he was. The claim (cf. 1950 NWT, 1984 Reference Edition) that Lucian used anastaroo to denote impalement in his play on Prometheus is also false; Lucian actually indicated a two-beamed cross. The Jewish historian Josephus described the Romans crucifying the Jews "in different postures" when they attacked Jerusalem (Jewish War, 5,450-451). By claiming that crux and stauros did not mean "cross" until the third century, the Society is intentionally distorting and hiding the facts.
Here are some ancient Greek and Roman references to crucifixion (stipes is the Latin word for the upright pole and patibulum is the word for the crossbeam):
"Being crucified is auspicious for all seafarers. For the stauros, like a ship, is made of wood and nails, and the ship's mast resembles a stauros." (Artemidorus, Oneirocritica, 2:53)
"Men weep and bewail their lot, and curse Cadmus with many curses for introducing Tau into the family of letters; they say it was his body that tyrants took for a model, his shape that they imitated, when they set up the erections on which men are crucified. Stauros the vile engine is called , and it derives its vile name from him. Now, with all these crimes upon him, does he not deserve death, nay, many deaths? For my part I know none bad enough but supplied by his own shape--that shape which he gave to the gibbet named stauros after him by men." (Lucian, Trial in the Court of Vowels, 12)
"Suppose we crucify [anestaurosthai] him half way up somewhere hereabouts over the ravine, with his hands out-stretched from crag to crag....Do you suppose there is not room on the Caucasus to peg out a couple of us? Come, your right hand! Clamp it down, Hephaestus, and in with the nails; bring down the hammer with a will. Now the left; make sure work of that too." (Lucian, Prometheus, 1-2)
I suspect you're doomed to die outside the gate, in that position: Hands spread out and nailed to the patibulum....Oh, I bet the executioners will have you looking like a human sieve, the way they'll prod you full of holes as they run you down the streets with your arms on a patibulum, once the old man gets back! .... I'll give two hundred pounds to the first man to charge my crux and take it ? on condition his legs and arms are double-nailed, that is....I shall bear the patibulum through the city; then I shall be nailed to the crux." (Plautus, Miles Gloriosus, 359-360; Mostellaria, 55-57, 359-360; Carbonaria, fragment 2; Plautus wrote about 250 BC)
"Though they strive to release themselves from their crosses (crucibus)---those crosses to which each one of you nails himself with his own hand--yet they, when brought to punishment hang each one on a single stipes ; but these others who bring upon themselves their own punishment are stretched upon as many crosses as they had desires. Yet they are slanderous and witty in heaping insult on others. I might believe that they were free to do so, did not some of them spit upon spectators from their own patibulum!" (Seneca, De Vita Beata, 19,3)
"I should deem him most despicable had he wished to live up to the very time of crucifixion (ad crucem). . . .Is it worth while to weigh down upon one's own wound, and hang impaled upon a patibulum? . . . . Can any man be found willing to be fastened to the accursed tree (infelix lignum ), long sickly, already deformed, swelling with ugly tumours on chest and shoulders, and draw the breath of life amid long drawn-out agony? I think he would have many excuses for dying even before mounting the crux!" (Seneca, Epistle 101,10-14)
2) The Gospel accounts assume a two-beamed cross, especially in the motif of Jesus or Simon of Cyrene carrying the cross on the way to Golgotha (cf. John 19:17) which is nothing other than the widely-attested practice of patibulum-bearing (the patibulum was the crossbeam). This practice pre-existed the invention of crucifixion as a method to torture disobediant slaves (cf. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Plutarch) and was widely adopted as a prelude to crucifixion (cf. Plautus, Plutarch, Artemidorus, Chariton). The Society would instead require Jesus or Simon to carry a pole to Golgotha (actually pictured in the Greatest Man Who Ever Lived book (1991, chapter 124), which is utterly without any historical support and ignores the copious evidence of patibulum -bearing. The traditional Christian picture of Jesus carrying the whole cross over one of his shoulders (seen in the Passion of the Christ movie) is also unhistorical....what the Romans did was have the prisoner stretch out his hands, nail or tie the hands to the crossbeam, and then having him bear the beam over his back or chest to the stationary stipes (vertical beam), and then hoist him up to the cross. This practice is also possibly alluded to in John 21:18-19 which also assumes a two-beamed cross. Details in John 20:25 and Matthew 27:37 are also best explained by assuming a two-beamed cross.
3) The use of the word xylon "tree, wood" in Acts 5:30; 10:39; 13:29, Galatians 3:13, and 1 Peter 2:24 does not indicate the kind of stauros Jesus died on, only that the Bible writers understood Roman crucifixion in terms of the law in Deuteronomy 21:23-23. Other Jewish writers referred to Roman crosses in exactly the same manner (including the Dead Sea Scrolls, Philo, Josephus), and Roman writers also referred to Roman crosses metaphorically as "trees" (cf. Seneca, quoted above).
4) There was a strong tradition in late first century and second century Christianity that repeatedly looked for prophecies and prefigurings of the two-beamed cross of Jesus in the OT, and described the stretching out of the hands from side to side as a sign of Jesus' cross (cf. Barnabas, Justin Martyr, Odes of Solomon, Irenaeus, Tertullian, etc.). Even the pagan Romans, in mocking the Christians, depicted a two-beamed cross (cf. the Palatine graffito).
There is lots more evidence, but this covers the basics.
I seem to recall that Nazis sometimes used crucificion (sp...it's monday, heh) as well.
I knew you guys would come through for me.
Thanks so much!
