Cross or a Stake - which was it?

by KAYTEE 120 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  inquirer

  Impaled on a stae.
  Apparently "stauros" originally meant (in that era) an upright stake, only. I... agree with the JW's.
  
  
  NWT
  5C “Torture Stake”
  
  The inspired writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures wrote in the common (koi·ne´) Greek and used the word stau·ros´ to mean the same thing as in the classical Greek, namely, a simple stake, or pale, without a crossbeam of any kind at any angle. There is no proof to the contrary. The apostles Peter
  and Paul also use the word xy´lon to refer to the torture instrument upon which Jesus was nailed, and this shows that it was an upright stake without a crossbeam, for that is what xy´lon in this special sense means. (Ac 5:30; 10:39; 13:29; Ga 3:13; 1Pe 2:24) In LXX we find xy´lon in Ezr 6:11 (1 Esdras
  6:31), and there it is spoken of as a beam on which the violator of law was to be hanged, the same as in Ac 5:30; 10:39.
  
  The Latin dictionary by Lewis and Short gives as the basic meaning of crux “a tree, frame, or other wooden instruments of execution, on which criminals were impaled or hanged.” In the writings of Livy, a Roman historian of the first century B.C.E., crux means a mere stake. “Cross” is only a later meaning of crux. A single stake for impalement of a criminal was called in Latin crux sim´plex. One such instrument of torture is illustrated by Justus Lipsius (1547-1606) in his book De cruce libri tres, Antwerp, 1629, p. 19. The photograph of the crux simplex on our p. 1578 is an actual reproduction from his book.
  
  Also have a look at these links! Some of them are unsure!
  
  
  http://bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Library.show/CT/RA/k/360
  
  http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_symb.htm
  
  http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04517a.htm look under II. -- common form of torture
  
  http://www.keyway.ca/htm2002/crosstak.htm -- either could be right!
  
  http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/newworldtranslation/stauros.htm -- sorry this is a JW site I think. I always prefer "worldly" web pages to prove my point so we are not biased.
  
  
  http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-greek/1999-December/009160.html -- no proof he died on a cross...
  
  http://spl.haxial.net/religion/cross/ -- interesting. Against the cross... (He quotes the famoust Vine's dictionary)
  
  http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/Scriptures/www.innvista.com/scriptures/compare/heathenb.htm
  
  
  http://www.answers.com/topic/christian-cross -- he quotes from the Vine's dictionary at the end anyway.
  
  http://experts.about.com/q/1617/4044677.htm -- just provides the answer.
  
  http://www.nazarite.net/king-james.html
  
  http://sermons.trbc.org/20040229.html
  
  http://www.faqfarm.com/Q/What_is_the_symbolic_meaning_of_the_Cross
  
  http://answering-islam.org.uk/Responses/Menj/stauros.htm -- If you read the last paragraph this is the main point he is trying to make.
  http://www.probe.org/content/view/18/77/ -- the Babylonian Talmud simply said he was "hanged." If you look at that section.But Josephus says otherwise.
  
  http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/talmud.html -- the last paragraph is of interest.They are unsure again!
  http://www.neverthirsty.org/pp/hist/talmud.html -- unsure!
  
  http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/chap5.html -- unsure!
  
  
  It seems as if a lot of people are unsure on what he died on! Hmmm Interesting... I'll just say he died on a stake for now!
• 

  jgnat

  What I like is that Leolaia goes as close to the source as she can. She's not quoting other people's opinions, but contemporary accounts. You can't get better research than that.
• 

  heathen

  this is one of the toughest arguments to conclude anything on . There is evidence for either cross or stake . The WTBTS argues that the nails went through his wrists but the bible shows Thomas putting his fingers in the holes in his hands not wrists .Historians know that the use of cross and stake was used at the same time period . I think even the word in hebrew ,the mosaic law code, could either mean tree or stake which Jesus was killed in accordance with . I don't know that it's such a big issue anyway but the use of it in worship is . The new testament forbids the use of idolotry .
• 

  Leolaia

  inquirer....I think you should take a look at my study at the above-referenced link (given by MerryMagdalene), which presents most of the relevant evidence (i.e. primary sources!) on the matter. It will show that statements such as:

  Apparently stauros originally meant (in that era) an upright stake, only.

  are flatly wrong. Stauros did originally mean "stake" and not "instrument of crucifixion in its various forms", but that was before crucifixion came into existence as a form of execution (i.e. before the third century BC). "In that era", i.e. in the era of the early Church, stauros most definitely did refer to a two-beamed cross; this is a fact, there are texts clearly establishing this. And it would have been most unusual if it did not denote such instruments since they were widely used in the Roman world at the time, and the meaning of the word was based on the instrument's function, not its shape. There were no specialized words in Greek that referred to the two-beamed cross alone (just as crux in Latin referred to the "cross" in all its various forms), the crux simplex and the crux compacta were all stauros.

  It seems as if a lot of people are unsure on what he died on! Hmmm Interesting... I'll just say he died on a stake for now! .... no proof he died on a cross...

  Absolutely there is uncertainty on what kind of stauros was used in the case of Jesus (assuming the historicity of the story). That's no surprise at all. But that is not the point. A more useful question is: Which of the two is more likely? Here the answer is clear: the evidence is much more in favor of Jesus dying on a cross with a patibulum than one without one. And the main reason the Society gives against this possibility (i.e. that stauros could not refer to a two-beamed cross) is just not valid.

  No proof that Jesus died on a cross, but it is much less likely that the stauros was a simple stake than a two-beamed cross.

  The rest of your post repeats a passage from the Watchtower Society which is error-riddled and misleading, and the list of links of secondary treatments of the subject is vastly inferior to the primary sources themselves (which I have recently put online).

  Also have a look at these links! Some of them are unsure!

  Any respectable scholar on the subject should be measured about the case of Jesus himself, although the reference to stauros-bearing in the gospels is a datum that makes it very unlikely that Jesus was not executed on a two-beamed cross. Some of these links are to discussions by people who are unacquainted with the primary evidence, or with little understanding of the linguistic issues involved. Some have clear polemical motives (e.g. "Christian Cross = Bastardized Paganism").

  For instance, W. E. Vine's opinion doesn't count for much if it squarely goes against the facts. It is just not true that the word stauros changed its meaning "in the middle of the 3rd cent." to refer to the two-beamed cross so that the Church could venerate the stauros of Jesus in the form of a T.
• 

  oldflame

  Gee, I always thought it was a tree with a cross beam
• 

  acadian

  Does it really matter, thats not where your salvation lies.

  People get caught up in the little things, forgetting the bigger picture ( whatever that is?)
• 

  Leolaia

  acadian is right, however it is the Society that has made a big issue out of it, and on false grounds, and it is perfectly reasonable to call them on it.
• 

  free2beme

  He was pinned to the local Watchtower until the town was Awake to their evil actions againt him.
• 

  Leolaia

  Here is what I originally wrote in my thread devoted to this subject:

  As is widely known, the Watchtower Society insists that Jesus did not die on a two-beamed cross but on a single-timber "torture stake". I agree with most people that this issue is pretty pointless and amounts only to a historical curiosity. As most Christians of faith would say, "It doesn't matter what he died on; it matters that he died for us". The purpose of this discussion is not to detract from that theological issue but instead to show that this subject is yet another instance of the Society's intellectual dishonesty and failure to represent the sources they quote. It will also provide a fairly interesting survey of what is historically known about the most heinous form of capital punishment in the Roman world.

  .....

  Again, as I mentioned at the outset, the issue of what device Jesus was crucified on is only a big deal because the Society has made it a big deal; for most Christians, the only important thing is the fact that Jesus gave his life, and for historians, the issue is only a passing curiosity. Since the Society has made it a big deal and over the years published a great deal on the matter, it is a concern worthy of investigation (and a matter like this can only be investigated in the thorough manner pursued here) -- if only to see whether the Society has approached the issue with intellectual integrity and competence.

  Unfortunately for the Society, they have performed very poorly in representing the evidence and supporting their claims. When they do discuss the relevant evidence, the articles are always much too brief and generally oversimplify the issue. Often they are little more than collections of quotes from other sources, such as W. E. Vine's lexicon (which is used simply as a proof-text, despite its obvious inaccuracy). The eyeopening statements found in Classical and patristic literature are consistently ignored, as well as the clues provided by the Bible itself. There is no reason for the Society to be unacquainted with this evidence; it is discussed in most major lexicons, biblical and classical encyclopedias, and commentaries.... works that are most definitely included in the vast Bethel library. If ever such evidence is mentioned, the Society always finds a reason to minimize or explain away facts inconvenient to its theory. But most serious of all is the dishonest or thoroughly inept manner in which the Society has cited the ancient writers Lucian and Livy.
• 

  ithinkisee

  Leolia has posted some great stuff on stauros, cross, etc.

  (Freshly updated since last night, it looks like!)

  http://site257.webhost4life.com/umcare/crux/

  -ithinkisee