JW Insider

Based on information from one of the sources of this image collection, evidently these are "images of Christian martyrs tortured (not executed) at poles or pillars, in Migne's Patrologia Latina, vol. 60."

The particular artwork came from Ethiopia, probably around 1900 using a style/format for religious art that had been current since the 1500's. The idea comes from John 19:1 which says: (John 19:1-2) Pilate then took Jesus and scourged him. 2 And the soldiers braided a crown of thorns and put it on his head . . . Then, near the end of the same chapter, John refers to a later event from the same day: (John 19:25) . . .By the [STAUROS] of Jesus, however, there were standing his mother and his mother’s sister; Mary the wife of Cloʹpas and Mary Magʹda·lene. This is depicted on the very next panel of the same folded parchment.

Interesting that the Hebrews would have called it "warp and woof." Wiktionary says of this term (red emphasis mine): Noun. warp and woof (countable and uncountable, plural warps and woofs) The threads in a woven fabric, composed of the warp (threads running lengthwise) and woof (threads running crosswise) to create the texture of the fabric. In other words criss-cross, using two different directions at 90 degrees. Makes you wonder how much experience at that time they had with crosses made of criss-crossed beams as opposed to a simple upright stake. The reference of warp and woof comes from creating cloth material on a loom, which also required conspicuous crossbeams at 90 degrees to the rest of the apparatus.

I'm trying to figure out the reason for the word "however" as if these points indicate some potentially different conclusions. Going to a part of his blog where some of these statements are made https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2011/10/13/the-staurogram-correcting-errors/ I see that his first point is simple: Contrary to the idea 100 years ago when Tau-Rho was considered just another Christogram like Chi-Rho, we now have textual evidence that Tau-Rho is much older: We have instances of the Christian use of the tau-rho considerably earlier than any instances of the chi-rho. These earliest uses of the tau-rho are in Christian manuscripts palaeographically dated ca. 200-250 CE. In fact, as you quoted: tau-rho served a very different purpose from chi-rho. They are not freestanding symbols that one would use to represent a symbol for Christ, but were clearly a way to depict and represent the word for CROSS and CRUCIFY within some of the earliest texts of the Christian Greek Scriptures. This is what is significant and different about the staurogram. You quoted point #3 that stated this again more directly. It's possible you are concerned here, as you show yourself to be later, that a superimposed tau-rho was adapted from pre-Christian usage. Of course, the dual-beamed cross itself (as an instrument of torture/execution) is well-known from pre-Christian usage. Even the "nomina sacra" were adapted from the pre-Christian usage, where Jewish copyists sometimes wrote Theos in Greek with only the beginning Theta and the closing Sigma, skipping the vowels -- or perhaps even the Yod-Yod, to abbreviate a Hebrew Tetragrammaton.This is similar to the practice some Jewish writers still follow in English when they write G-d for God. That practice predated the practice in Christian texts of doing the same for Theos, and something similar for Lord, and Jesus and Christ. And the practice of using abbreviations was most well-known on coinage where space is at a premium. I'm not sure if this bit of knowledge means something to you, one way or another. You call it "disturbing" later. Why? I'd like to know, too. Those who actually study the age of manuscripts based on their materials and style of lettering and clues from the contents (including vocabulary and abbreviations) will put most of these examples in the 200 to 250 CE range. Some of the arguments that would place at least one of them to a later century are often the same arguments that could place them even earlier. They are often just arguments for the lack of accuracy of paleographic methods. But the exact date of the manuscripts is not so important to the overall evidence. The point is that the shape of the stauros associated with Jesus' execution is depicted and described very few times that we know of in the first 4 centuries. Basically, it's the Letter of Barnabas, Clement of Alexandria, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Eusebius, and these staurograms in texts that might date between 175 to 300 CE. In every case where the shape is discussed, the consensus is a Tau-shaped or t-shaped stauros for the execution of Jesus Christ. And this is not ALL the evidence, of course. The way that words are translated into other languages during the earliest translations of the CGS/NT can also provide good information. Archaeology can tell us a few things, including a probable cross found at Pompeii, and the graffiti depicted earlier. Even the lack of discussion or controversy about the shape can be revealing. And contemporary historical references about Roman execution practices can have a bearing, too. Remember, too, that if it were somehow important to note that this date is closer to the fourth century than the first century, then what does this say about the earliest known discussions of a "I" shaped, or pole-shaped stauros with reference to Jesus' execution? For all I can tell, those discussions might first be known only from many centuries later than the fourth century. Therefore, whatever importance we give to the "lateness" of these depictions of a two-beamed cross only further hurts the argument for a one-beamed cross. In addition, if the shape of the stauros were a double-beamed cross shape, then it seems very reasonable that idolatry-oriented associates of Christians would adapt it to the existing ankh symbol for life, and the existing tau-rho symbol. Related somewhat to the ankh symbol ("life" etc.) Hurtado, in the book I quoted, also believes that IH, the first two letters of Jesus in Greek formed an adaption of the Hebrew word for life which also could appear quite similar to IH, read in the opposite direction. And while Hurtado is not a promoter of gematria, he sees the possibility that it may have been intentional in some NT texts. He even mentions that Matthew's attempt to split the genealogical groups before and after David to conform to a mnemonic of 14 generations each, could very well be because "David" in Hebrew is 14. But we do know for sure that "Barnabas" was big on gematria, and he would have had a much easier time if the stauros could have been considered in the shape of an upright pole that would therefore represent "10". Too bad for him that he was stuck trying to fit the stauros in somewhere --anywhere!-- as a "300" instead of a "10." All he had available was an obscure reference to the number of Abram's slaves in Genesis, and he could do very little with it except make a note of it. There would have been dozens of interesting options available if the stauros were some other shape. Beyond those points I agree with all your later points. Pushing for a specific answer one way or another is not useful as we still have no way of knowing for sure. There were already simple meanings of stauros and xylon which never got expanded upon much in the Bible text itself, and speculating in any way that insists on a specific conclusion will end up in nothing useful. I have to admit that there is a certain iconoclastic satisfaction that I probably held inside for many years when I thought about how so many people had it wrong, and I just knew we had it right based on unquestioning acceptance of our own publications. Perhaps it would be somewhat satisfying to get that feeling back again, but it's probably for the wrong reasons. There's just a hint of pride and presumptuousness and judgmentalism, bordering on schadenfreude, in that idea that we are right about something and 99% of Christendom has been wrong about one of their major symbols. Besides, we would still know better than to make a big deal about the shape or the symbol even if we did accept that Jesus was executed on a stauros of the two-beamed variety.

Do you have a citation for this? I'm not saying he didn't do this, I just never saw the evidence. It makes sense that Christians would not necessarily advertise their Christianity with an open symbol until they had a legal standing in the Roman Empire. Of course, they were also known to preach their Christian faith, so this could imply a contradiction. I suppose it's possible considering he was an Emperor and had access to all Roman records, some still written on tablets, scrolls and kept in libraries. He would have had the full works of known historians along with those long since lost and forgotten. But if he did not know, he apparently would have accepted the word of Christians like Eusebius who had himself bragged about his own large library of historical works, and that of other historians and scholars. And potentially he still had access to speak with the very grandchildren of first century Christians. In fact, Eusebius speaks of the experiences of Papias a Christian who lived between 60 CE and 160 CE, and who made visits to Palestine for the very purpose of finding witnesses to first century events. That could be true. Of course, we already have a record of what was done specifically to humiliate Jesus in great detail. If this use of an upright stauros instead of a two-beamed stauros was such a powerful symbolic feature of the humiliation, then it certainly seems worthy of recording in the Bible, rather than leaving us to speculate beyond what is written. That's exactly right. We should really explore the entire range of meaning of the Greek word, similar to how we have explored the range of meaning of the Greek word for "hand." I think that a discussion of the PDF that the Librarian referenced provides meanings and utilization of the word, in addition to the basic meanings you provided. In addition we have resources quoted that give us a better context for the rituals of execution that have been related to execution by stauros. I hadn't seen all of this before when Ann O'maly linked it, but I just finished it, and might have time to discuss tomorrow.

OK. But this was not 400 years after Christ, it was supposed to be October 27, 312, which is about 279 years after Christ and only about 213 years after the traditional death of last apostle (John).

Per the Greek, the translation is correct, and matches most others in this regard. They assume there were two nails, and that there was a place through "the hands" where one of those two nails passed through. The assumption about the wrist is very possible. Evidently the traditions about washing of hands refers to a practice of washing the hand and arm up to the elbow. And other examples from the Bible have already been given. From years ago, I remember discussions of an assumption that a nail in the hand(s) would not hold Jesus weight and would rip through. This is probably assumed to be true whether stretched out like a traditional cross or upright. Personally, I think the "physics" problem goes away with two nails, one in each hand, and therefore wrists aren't a necessary assumption. I give weight to the written Biblical evidence the same as you apparently do, but it is not unusual for Christians of all backgrounds in every generation to make certain assumptions about the meaning of a word or phrase, when that meaning can vary. I think the assumptions in this case are unnecessary, but this is only one of literally hundreds of places where the meaning could be ambiguous even if it can (and should?) be read in a more straightforward way, too. I think about the arguments early Christians must have had over whether the Hebrew word for "young woman" needed to be translated "virgin." (LXX vs Hebrew) Or how Christians since the beginning have looked at two slightly divergent accounts and had to come up with an assumed third story to try to resolve the apparent contradiction. Assumptions and acceptance of variations in meaning have been a part of interpreting and translating since the beginning of Christianity. No one can avoid it, and it might be much more common than you think. Being different is no doubt considered very important, and this was a good opportunity with some evidence behind it. The clearly correct point is that we don't venerate objects like a cross. Another point of difference is that we look for ways to see Jesus Christ himself in a different light compared to the other religions of Christendom. Others venerate Jesus himself, taking away from the devotion due to the Creator himself. Turning the ideas of Christendom "upside down" is one reason "the GB" have looked so hard for evidence that contradicts the common views of other religions. That picture is an interpretation based on some assumptions. The assumptions might be valid.

At least he's not just "phoning it in." (Perhaps you were looking for "phone-y" witnessing. )

You beat me to it. I had to be out for most of today, but hoped to come back to @JOHN BUTLER to remind him that this is just my opinion based on the evidence. I lean one way because the evidence I've seen is slightly more convincing to me in that direction. But this does not mean that someone else (GB?) can't see the same evidence, and the majority of them lean the other way, per our own traditional stance on it since Rutherford's time. To John, I would say that this Staurogram, and graffiti evidence too, cannot take us back much before 200 CE even if the evidence is exactly as old as some scholars still claim. As you point out from the words of Paul, even if evidence showed that this was as early as 50 CE, it still wouldn't be "proof." It could very well have been one of the ways in which "lawlessness" was already at work. After all, there is no doubt that the veneration of a cross symbol crosses the line into idolatry. And through syncretism with older traditions, the cross would have been a much more recognizable symbol with a richer history for veneration than a plain "I" symbol. And warnings about idolatry run from Paul's letters right up through (and througout) Revelation. You hit upon most (perhaps all) of the weaknesses of the Staurogram evidence, and these might have already been taken into consideration by those who have researched the current position as outlined in the WT publications. The actual earliest evidence appears to be the argumentation in the Letter of Barnabas which scholars have not tried to date much later than 120 or 130. And there is no solid evidence to claim it was later than 75 or 80 either. "Barnabas" is big on gematria, of course, and this could even be one of the areas that letters to Titus and Timothy reference when they speak of things like being "obsessed with arguments and debates about words." (1 Tim 6:4). There's even a slim chance that it was this very book (and books like it) that were being challenged here and in Titus 3:9, etc. Even so, it would not change the fact that a T shaped stauros is built into the argument as an aside, along with this early discussion of how T and then IH would create the number 318 (T=the stauros and the IH symbol which was already in use as a reference to IHSOUS -Jesus.) Many years later in Christian copy of Genesis, the numer 318 comes up as the number of Abram's slaves: (Genesis 14:14) 14 Thus Aʹbram heard that his relative had been taken captive. With that he mobilized his trained men, 318 servants born in his household, and went in pursuit up to Dan. The much later Genesis manuscript treats the number 318 here as a "nomina sacra" just as Barnabas had discussed upwards of 300 years earlier. BTW, I also wanted to mention that Hurtado deals with the fact that just because a scholar gave these terms the name "nomina sacra" it doesn't mean that they were all considered to be the equivalent of a Divine Name. Obviously, this is true of Stauros, which is nothing like a "divine name," but we also know that this was a development over many years, and there is no evidence that "Spirit" (pneuma) was added to the list until 400 or so. Also, there were many other names that only reminded them of Jesus or God, such as "Joshua the son of Nun" or even Moses, Abraham and David. So this wasn't intended as a complete discussion of "nomina sacra" by any means. Although there are some weaknesses and flexibility as to the exact dates scholars try to pin on things, it doesn't (for me) change the balance of the evidence favoring one meaning over the other. And as we've already covered, there is no reason for anyone to claim proof or insist on any particular shape based on any of the evidence so far.

Not really. You don't have to be able to read Greek. It's the same word just inflected differently because of the way it's used in a sentence. Kind of like "He seeks" and "He sought" or "they own it" and "it is theirs" or "one child" and "two children." A quick way to see this is to go to: https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/jhn/20/25/t_concf_1017025 and https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/act/12/7/t_concf_1030007 You should be looking at the "Interlinear" Greek of each verse. Just roll your cursor slowly over the Greek words in the Textus Receptus (the NWT will be closer to the GNT Morphological at the bottom of the verse, but they are usually the same). If you are looking at the Greek Interlinear tab (or the Reverse Interlinear tab) you can see that in John 20:25 χερσὶν is the same noun for "hand" but that it is in "Dative Feminine Plural" (dative is the possessive/ownership case, as in they vs. theirs). This will usually provide the answer for variations of the same word. In this particular case it doesn't help so much because the same basic reasons are true of both, and the difference is due to a writer's choice based on a prepositional inflection in this case. Biblehub provides all the variations of cheir χεὶρ: Strong's Greek 5495 179 Occurrences χεὶρ — 13 Occ. χεῖρα — 30 Occ. χεῖρας — 60 Occ. χεῖρες — 2 Occ. χειρὶ — 20 Occ. χειρῶν — 18 Occ. χειρὸς — 26 Occ. χερσὶν — 10 Occ.

Wikipedia shows a simple staurogram on an oil lamp from Caesarea, now at a museum in Israel, that could have come from the 300's CE. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Staurogram#/media/File:Nahsholim-Tel-Dor-3187.jpg This was one of the pieces of evidence that made me think that some Christians, especially those with Jewish family backgrounds, might have found staurogram designs to be preferable to the type of graven imagery apparently forbidden in the Mosaic Law. There is also early imagery like this: The graffiti is dated to the late second century, likely within 100 years of the book of Revelation. It shows a man looking up to a donkey on a cross and says in Greek: “Alexamenos worships god.” It's polemic, of course, depicting Jesus as a donkey. The book that @indagator recommended by Frank Shaw, discussed elsewhere, helps explain why Jesus was depicted as a donkey. The word for donkey seems to be a bit like onomatopoeia, like calling a donkey a "hee-haw" or "Eeyore". In Coptic the word for "donkey/ass" was EIO and the divine name known to have been used by Jews and evidently Christians and even pagans for the Jewish God was IAO [Ya'o/Yaho], the equivalent of "Yah" or "Yaho" [cf. Jah, Jaho, Jahowa]. Jewish and perhaps even Christian writers changed the names of pagan gods slightly so that they would sound insulting. (Compare Beelzebul, "Lord of the High Place," to Beelzebub, "Lord of the Flies."). The similarity between a word for "donkey" and the Jewish God's divine name made it a prime candidate for the same type of derision. And the Jewish name for Jesus contained both the divine name "Yaho" and the connected word for "Savior" or "Salvation." (Yaho-shuah/Joshua/Jesus means "Jehovah [Yaho] is Salvation.") It was not because of the legend that "Your Savior will come riding on the back of a donkey" is the reason for the cross on the back of so many breeds of donkeys:

There is an interesting linguistic phenomenon where the s sound is not perfectly mimicked when words transfer from one language to another. The shibboleth in Hebrew was an example, with sibboleth as the alternative. French is famous for this where Latin words like studium became words like étude, dropping the initial s. And French rarely pronounces a final s of a word, except through elision. In Spain many words spelled with an s are pronounced with a soft "th" which often disappears altogether. Here is a question about it with a couple examples, I saw here, http://www.spanishdict.com/answers/209708/dropping-the-s-do-people-talk-like-this Listening to a few of my songs sung by native Spanish speakers I noticed that they seem to leave the letter s out when saying some words - sounding like 'etán' instead of están or leaving i[t] off if the word ends in s - eg. Dio mío. [instead of Dios mio]. Even between Greek and Latin, there was an evolution with the letter "s" so that for example, the numbers 6 (hex) and 7 (hepta) became 6 (sex) and 7 (septa). [heptagon, September, etc.] There are hundreds more such examples. So speakers familiar with Mediterranean dialects probably could easily understand words that left off an initial "s" and a final "s." So what happens when one leaves off the initial "s" and final "s" of the word STAUROS? You get Tau-Ro and can spell it with two Greek letters: Tau-Rho. If there had been any tendency to want to highlight the letter T in any of the "nomina sacra" adjustments to special terms referring to either Jesus or God in the early Christian texts, then this would have been the best opportunity, because all the other major words started with Th/Theta (Theos), X (Christ), I/Iota (Jesus) K (Kurios/Lord). But the Tau-Rho was combined in such a way that it apparently produces a simple image of Jesus Christ on the Stauros. It's called a "Staurogram" and is the earliest known of the two best-known "Christograms." Rememer that Tau looks like a T and Rho looks like our letter P. If you put the Tau down first and then the Rho on top of it, you'd get: This was a kind of stick figure drawing, and is found in very early manuscripts where either the noun stauros is intended, or the verb for "crucify" is intended. The image is taken from the Bodmer Papyrus P.75, and therefore, according to https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/crucifixion/the-staurogram/: Staurograms serve as the earliest images of Jesus on the cross, predating other Christian crucifixion imagery by 200 years. Photo: Foundation Martin Bodmer. If one had wanted to spell out the initial and final S of the word (which looks like a C in Greek Uncial (or Coptic) it would be done like this: The intention of these symbols becomes clear when pictorial imagery became more widely accepted in the Christian-associated churches. Note that an "Alpha" and "Omega" are also added to the imagery in this instance. Also note that the head is always above the crossbeam of the Tau, implying that the shape used a lowered crossbeam. (Or that it was important to lift Jesus head above the cross for symbolic purposes.)

In the first century, the Christian congregation was largely Jewish, and all the Christian Bible writers were identified as Jewish. So the longstanding tradition was to follow the practice of no images of any kind. So we might not have even expected a symbol of a fish to spread around in the first century. Some of the Christian-associated writers and books that appear to have come from the second century were also identified as Jewish. (Letter of Barnabas, Didache, Gospel of Peter, Gospel of Thomas, Egerton Gospel, the Christian redaction of Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, etc.) This could include as many as half of the 100 or so writings that many scholars think originated in the second century. See especially column 2 of the list here: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/ The Jewishness of the early Christians is indicated by the extended time period of Jewish-centered writings. And, rather than attacking Judaizers, there is a pro-Jewish perspective seen in the last book of the Bible, which is quite possibly from the year 100 CE, and which would place it in the second century, too: (Revelation 2:9) . . .and the blasphemy by those who call themselves Jews and really are not, but they are a synagogue of Satan. (Revelation 3:9) Look! I will make those from the synagogue of Satan who say they are Jews yet are not, but are lying—look! I will make them come and bow before your feet and make them know that I have loved you. This is meant mostly as an explanation of why we have so few images of anything from the first two centuries of Christianity. And, any solution that might overcome the lack of images, we might therefore expect to come from writing, descriptions, word pictures, or even pictographs made from written characters. If the writers had consistently gone out of their way to give special attention to the letter T, for example, this might have been evidence of a T shaped Stauros. First of all, the Letter of Barnabas, dated 80 CE to 120 CE actually does give special attention to the letter T. And, yes, the "Letter of Barnabas" ties the letter T directly to the Stauros. You might remember that I went so far as to contact someone at the British Museum to suggest resources on this same topic. I was told that I must read the books they had from a scholar named Larry W Hurtado, Professor Emeritus at University of Edinburgh, who studied at the the Ancient History Documentary Research Centre, at Macquarie University. I have 4 of his books including, "The Earliest Christian Artifacts -- Manuscripts and Christian Origins" (2006). This book shows that the first symbol for the Stauros actually was drawn from characters for writing, a pictogram made up of alphabetic characters. This is what we would expect from a culture that allowed no images, per se. The topic is fascinating. First of all, there were certain words that were given special treatment in the earliest known texts of Christianity, especially the "New Testament" Bible texts themselves. The "Divine Names" (nomina sacra) were treated with a special type of abbreviation and a kind of halo over them that connected the first and last letters of the word. The primary words that got this treatment were: God, Jesus, Lord, and Christ. In the Egerton Gospel (70 - 120 CE) we see these already in use, plus a a few more. By the 300's words like Son, Savior, Spirit, and Stauros were already treated as "Divine Names" (nomina sacra). The oldest manuscripts of the Gospel of Thomas, Acts of Peter, Acts of John, contain them, as do all of our major Bible texts, including fragments from the second century. Even "Old Testament" texts that were copied through Christian hands were copied with consistent examples of the "nomina sacra." The nomina sacra for "Jesus" was already discussed in both the Letter of Barnabas and by Clement of Alexandria, both from the second century, with a chance that Barnabas was written in the first century. [Epistle of Barnabas (9.7-8) and Clement of Alexandria (Strom. 6.278-80)]. So we know that the practice goes back possibly as early as the earliest Christian writings. As mentioned earlier, Barnabas discusses it with reference to T (tau) being the symbol for the "cross" or stauros, for no other reason than its shape. But there is much more on this. Stauros got the most special kind of treatment beyond that of any other "nomina sacra." (To be continued in another post).

I think the idea that the the Stauros might have been just an upright pole also came many, many years after Jesus' death, long after Christendom had already taken up a two-piece Stauros as a symbol. In another thread you mentioned that it was 400 years after Jesus' death. Did you have a specific piece of evidence in mind? I'll bring that statement over here for reference:

FWIW, I believe Jesus was much more likely nailed to a two-piece stauros. If so, it would have looked like a "T" or a "t" or a "+". Since it's more likely, it's therefore my personal preference to think it was a "cross" in the typical sense. But its physical appearance is not important to the overall understanding of the Bible. It's even less important to the understanding of what the symbolic meaning of the "cross" should be to Christians. The fact is that it could have been an upright pole. That's a piece of information very few people know about, and it might be good to point that out to people just so such facts might "jar" them into realizing that not everything we grew up believing is necessarily so. (This is true of those who grew up on Watchtower doctrines, too, as several surprising changes to those doctrines should have recently made clear.) We should keep in mind that there are always new facts to learn and some of them will be more important than others. I think Anna is right that the WTS chose the idea of an upright stake to differentiate itself from Christendom, or perhaps almost as likely, to differentiate itself from Bible Students who followed Russell. The scripture in John 20:25 could be an important piece of evidence. The Watchtower has used exactly such types of scriptural evidence to adjust other doctrines in the past, even the very recent past. It might also be important to note that the WT publications rarely imply that we know for sure. It's usually not very dogmatic on the point. But I have to admit that in these discussions of whether it was a one-piece or two-piece stauros, the John 20:25 scripture is rarely mentioned, which implies that the WTS realizes this evidence is damaging to the theory. But we also have to give the WTS position a fair shot before dismissing it as impossible. For example, what if it was thought for years that stauros had been a single upright pole, and Christendom had always pictured it this way. Let's say that a new organization called the Watch-Tau-er came along and said it was in the shape of the letter "Tau" (T). There was a ton of archaeological evidence against them but they pointed out that this verse in John 20:25 says nails and appears to refer only to the hands. The established church and many fundamentalists would come along and say that the Watch-Tau-er was misinterpreting this and the reference was to the nails, plural, but that one of these nails was stuck in the hands and one was stuck in the feet. Or that multiple nails could have been used and still they were stuck in the hands on an upright stauros. Taking any stand against the norm results in a lot of defensiveness for the position that might seem obvious, but is really based on a preconception or bias from the majority, and from having seen 1,000 pictures that showed the same thing. However, where some Witnesses make a mistake is to say that there is no evidence that the cross ever was associated with early Christians until 300 years, or even 400 years after the first century CE. In fact, there is probable evidence that it was already associated with Christians as early as the very next century after Jesus Christ. There is excellent and, to my mind, unimpeachable evidence that the two-piece cross was in use as early as 200 years after the first century. If something of that time period is discovered in multiple places 200 years after the first century, we don't automatically assume we have discovered the first instance that evidence, but assume that it's evidence of a developing usage, and that there were very likely some earlier instances of it yet undiscovered.

It's a bit of a byproduct of research assignments, but mostly from working with other people who had already found such things. I got to work with some of the proofreaders for a few of the Society's books/bibles including that short-lived 1981 version, and selecting appropriate cross-refs. Also proofreaders sometimes became a part of the process for the Art Department where I worked.

Maybe there were shades of dictatorship, maybe someone was frightened of something. But the reason I share all of this is because we need to know that people will have the same problems now as they had for thousands of years. Think about what you might have done if you lived in the reign of King Manasseh or had knowledge of David's immorality before it was put in CONTEXT by the rest of the Bible. Of what about being stumbled by the way men from James, and also John and Peter were acting with respect to the Judaizers mentioned in Galatians 1 and 2. Or if you knew that the "Governing Body" had given a decree including not eating meat sacrificed to idols and then you heard the apostle Paul preach that it was OK to eat meat sacrificed to idols? Or what if you had heard Jesus say you have to eat his body and drink his blood? Or what about all those superfine apostles that attracted followers of men in first-century congregations? What if you heard that Peter had killed 2 contributors to the early congregation for holding back some of their claimed contribution. These might have seemed causes for stumbling, and we could easily conceive of many brothers backing away from their congregations in doubt or even defiance of false understandings. But what was the correct response? If some might have known better, or saw that something was not really handled Biblically, would merely running from it have been the loving thing to do? I think some have too high an opinion of what the GB represent, even higher than what the GB are claiming themselves. For those persons, it's good to review the record. For others, too, it's good not to place too high of expectations on humans, but appreciate the truths themselves. The message outweighs the messenger.

How about just using online resources where Strong's has been turned into something more like an online Concordance. Try https://www.blueletterbible.org for example. Or, https://www.biblestudytools.com/interlinear-bible/ There are quite a few available. You can even tie OT verses directly to the LXX and find good English translations of the LXX.

It was well-known that he would be threatened with dismissal if he grew a beard, even though his was very neatly trimmed and short. It had happened to others. Why in the world anyone would want to test this was a mystery to me. He didn't even claim it was a skin thing which might have got him a reprieve. He was not disfellowshipped, but he was dismissed from Bethel and remained an elder after shaving. There was no written rule about beards that I ever knew of. Rutherford was adamantly against them, and I think it was just a long tradition, and it fit in with the idea of trying to present ourselves at all times without giving anyone a cause for stumbling. No, it was forbidden because housekeepers were on the lookout for Bible study material that was not approved and several brothers got in trouble for owning it in their rooms. The crackdown on Bible study in groups was done because someone (perhaps more than one person) thought there was a direct connection between this and the rumors of apostasy. It turned out that there were dozens of such Bible study groups uncovered that had been going on since the early 1970's if not before. I attended two per week, about two hours each, in the room of a member of the Writing Department, and I knew others who had attended others also often in the room of members of the Writing Department, former Gilead Students etc. The ones I attended were discussions of a chapter or two at a time of the Bible in context until the whole book was finished. After every paragraph a brother would ask questions to draw people out, and people would comment about what it seemed to mean in context. One of these meetings, I think it was the one in the room of Mark Nevajans (who was not in Writing, and might not have even been a Bethel Elder), was turned in for allowing the discussion of alternative doctrines like "great crowd" "other sheep" "disagreement with 1914". I'm told that this sparked a kind of "witchhunt" where everyone had to "rat out" anyone else they knew who was participating in Bethel Bible studies. These studies turned into a big scandal which were actually forbidden. Then ownership of non-Witness commentaries was questioned, and the actual idea of a "commentary" was questioned -- which was the basic mistake made in the book "Commentary on the Letter of James" which made it considered to be "apostate." Bethelite access to the Bethel Library and Gilead Library was also restricted. Those libraries were full of commentaries of all kinds. Very soon, these libraries were both moved to another building away from Bethelite access, and away from buildings that were residences like 124 and 107 CH. They were now attached to the offices of Writing, Service, etc, and were much harder to get to. Smaller libraries of only a few of the WTS books and a dictionary replaced them for the average Bethelite's use.

The one you had was an update of the 1969/70 version. The update included changes to the NWT modern text in the right and several other updates/corrections. Some of these had been mentioned in the Kingdom Ministry: *** km 6/70 p. 3 Announcements *** ◆ Correction: In The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures on page 1171 the date Nisan 10 should be moved down two lines so that the first event listed for that day will be “Barren fig tree cursed; second temple cleansing.” We suggest that you mark this correction in your personal copy. ◆ Also, on page 615, under the last Greek word on the top line, change the preposition “to” to read “of,” so as to make it read “of us.” Even this Interlinear was an update to the Emphatic Diaglott by Benjamin Wilson. The Watch Tower Society purchased the plates and the full rights to republish and distribute this interlinear. This was available through the WTS for many years, from 1902 even up to the 1960's until the inventory ran out. Yes. But not for the public. It was created digitally and based on J.P.Green's Hebrew Interlinear. You can see a glimpse of it in the introductory video at Patterson (for tours) showing how NWT Bible translators go back to both the original Hebrew and Greek. It's an online tool, but may be too much of a derivative from a previously published work to be republished by the Watchtower. A limited number of Green's Hebrew Interlinear was made available to some Bethelites in 1979 and then effectively "forbidden" for private use in 1980 after some Bible study groups at Bethel began using it. Anyone who asked for a copy after December 1979 was thoroughly questioned until the WTS stopped making it internally available by April 1980. The brother in "Purchasing" who was in charge of procuring them (for Bethelites, the GB, and the Bethel and Gilead Library) was dismissed for growing a beard in April, and there were no more responses to the requests. [I threw in that last bit of info about the beard in case people really don't think the GB create man-made rules. The GB were actually very proud of man-made rules at this time and even highlighted them at a 1980 meeting of Bethel Elders as something that proved Jehovah's blessing on his visible organization. Brother Schroeder, in fact, counted the number of the rules in the Branch Organization book and compared them to the 617 laws of Moses to show how God has proven himself to be a God of Order/Organization.]

I agree, and there was considerable overlap between education in scripture and education in literacy, anyway. I don't see a conflict at all, just an interesting point of discussion when it comes to variations in possible translations of the same Greek word(s). And although you implied that we should compare all the versions of the NWT instead of just 1984 to 2013, I don't see anything of any importance in such a project. From what I shared above, you can probably see that the types of changes were usually of very minor consequence. Of course, there have also been changes that were deliberate because they were considered very important, such as changing "worship" to "obeisance" especially when the previous reference had been to "worship" offered to Jesus Christ. But these were well explained along the way in the Watchtower, the Appendixes, and the footnotes. I like the chart. Where would you place the 1984 NWT and the 2013 Revised NWT on such a chart? I don't see any reason to criticize the Watchtower for revising the translation. I think it was an excellent idea. By the way, I forgot to mention that the use of "prove to be" (proving to be, proves to be, proved to be) was a common complaint from readers of the 1950 to 1984 version. More than 95% of those instances are gone, but not all of them.

According to the record from the Watchtower Society itself, this is about right, if you don't count some interim corrections to typos, page headings, and grammar inconsistencies. (These are minor, but there have been at least 16 additional versions if you count these minor printing updates.) For example the original NWT of Psalms in the 1963 and 1964 "Fat Boy" NWT had a big bold typo (Psalm 17 was marked as Psalm 71). The large print (bi8) printed in 1971 had some typos, such as switching the font of the verse number itself from regular to bold and back to regular --most noticeable in Hebrews 9:27 where the 2 is bold and the 7 is regular, and even a couple of subject-verb agreement errors that were fixed up until 1984, well before the 2013 Revised came out. When the 2013 came out a heading on a page 267 was wrong, Psalm 51:4 was changed, and there were still some inconsistencies with capitalization and usage. Here's one example with the capitalization of "Ark" [of the Testimony]. Exodus 25:22 still has one remaining inconsistency: (Exodus 25:16-22) 16 You will place in the Ark the Testimony that I will give you. 17 “You will make a cover of pure gold, two and a half cubits long and a cubit and a half wide. 18 You are to make two cherubs of gold; you will make them of hammered work on the two ends of the cover. 19 Make the cherubs on the two ends, one cherub on each end of the cover. 20 The cherubs are to spread out their two wings upward, overshadowing the cover with their wings, and they will face each other. The faces of the cherubs will be turned toward the cover. 21 You will put the cover on the Ark, and in the Ark you will place the Testimony that I will give you. 22 I will present myself to you there and speak with you from above the cover. From between the two cherubs that are on the ark of the Testimony, I will make known to you all that I will command you for the Israelites. (2013 NWT) Exodus 25:22 (1972 bi8) . . . the two cherubs that are upon the ark of the testimony . . . (1972-1984) Exodus 25:16 And you must place in the Ark the testimony that I shall give you. (1984) Note that in 2013 every instance of "the Ark" is capitalized except this one in verse 22. Also verse 10 does NOT capitalize it in 2013, but did capitalize it in 1984. And you can see above, in verse 16, that Ark was capitalized in 1984, but in no places was testimony ever capitalized. As far back as the 1953-1961 versions of the NWT, "Testimony" was capitalized, but "ark of the testimony" was not always, even in the same context, or sometimes just Ark and not testimony: (Numbers 7:89) he would hear the voice conversing with him from above the cover which was upon the Ark of the testimony, from between the two cherubs [upon the cover].” (1953) (Exodus 16:33,34) Moses said to Aaron: ‘Take a jar and put in it an omerful of manna and deposit it before Jehovah as something to be kept throughout your generations.’ Just as Jehovah had commanded Moses, Aaron proceeded to deposit it before the Testimony as something to be kept. (1953) (Num. 17:10) Subsequently Jehovah said to Moses: "Put Aaron’s rod back before the Testimony as something to be kept for a sign to the sons of rebelliousness, that their murmurings may cease from against me, that they may not die." (1953) Also note that in Deuteronomy, the term "ark of the testimony" is never used; it's always "ark of the covenant," (a different Hebrew word) but this doesn't ever get capitalized in any NWT of any date. (There are exceptions in quotes from the Watchtower in the 1950's, 1960, and 1976, but not in the NWT itself. ["ark of the covenant" "Ark of the covenant" or "Ark of the Covenant".] Of the hundred or so references, there has been no capitalization since the 1970's.) (Deuteronomy 31:26) “Take this book of the Law and place it at the side of the ark of the covenant of Jehovah your God. . . (2013) (Deuteronomy 31:26) “Taking this book of the Law, YOU must place it at the side of the ark of the covenant of Jehovah your God. (1960-1984) In fact, between 1961 and 1964, there were literally hundreds of pages that needed re-pagination along with the page headings, dozens of footnotes with the wrong J-references, cross-references, footnote letters skipped, wrong hyphenation breaks, a couple of misspellings, mismatched single/double quote marks, and at least a couple of grammar changes. There is some evidence of these changes in one of my "Fat Boy" Bibles where you can see that certain pages were updated, and these resulted in a brighter light-green edging on the updated pages (which includes Psalm 17, of course). See the pictures below:

I think this point showed excellent insight. I wondered if this is what you meant from the start. The very context shows that the type of leadership in this case is more like the local elders rather than the far-away GB: (Hebrews 13:7) . . .Remember those who are taking the lead among you, who have spoken the word of God to you, and as you contemplate how their conduct turns out, imitate their faith. However, I wouldn't get too hung up on variations in translations, or changes from one NWT to a newer version. As JWs, we are always happy to quote other translations that support our view of Scriptures. There are always several different ways to translate something and it doesn't mean that one is right and one is wrong. They could both be right. Often there are two ways to say the exact same thing. Often there are slight differences, and sometimes larger differences in meaning, and a translator is obligated to take an educated guess. The "nakedness" vs "lacking clothing" discussion is an example of that. The word for nakedness in the original Greek is "gymnos." (Strong's Greek #1131) It's the same word from which we get "gymnasium" because sports in the Greek/Roman world were often performed naked (and sometimes nearly so). This reminds me that I gave a funeral talk in Manhattan in 2013 on the day of the Annual Meeting, and the elder from Bethel (Patterson) who was supposed to give the talk had to leave early for his seat in Jersey City. I already had a copy of the NWT 2013 Revised on PDF, and was under strict orders not to share this fact with anyone, not even my wife. But I cheated a bit. The funeral was attended by a lot of her "worldly" neighbors in addition to brothers and sisters. She had been well-known as a Dorcas-like sister who actually had bought me a new warm coat when I first came to Bethel in 1976. I wanted to use the example in James 2:15, but I always hated the fact that it said "naked" there, and I especially didn't want to read it that way in front of non-Witnesses: (James 2:15-16) 15 If a brother or a sister is in a naked state and lacking the food sufficient for the day, 16 yet a certain one of YOU says to them: “Go in peace, keep warm and well fed,” but YOU do not give them the necessities for [their] body, of what benefit is it? So I used the 2013 NWT Revised, against orders, but no one called me out on it. Because no one else should have known anyway. Besides, the new Bible was to be released in just a few hours: (James 2:15, 16) 15 If a brother or a sister is lacking clothing and enough food for the day, 16 yet one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but you do not give them what they need for their body, of what benefit is it? The first is actually a little more accurate from a literal point of view. But the second is probably more accurate from a practical point of view, as it's hard to imagine someone coming into the KH completely naked. The word "torture stake" vs "stake" is a good point. One is for understanding and the other more literal. A better example might be the word "impaled" which was completely wrong in its most common connotations. That was fixed in 2013. Some other points are still questionable, and the translators might still wonder whether they may have had a better choice in the old version of the NWT. Here's an example, I wanted to share earlier when discussion the term "illiterate" with @Outta Here so I'll use this excuse to bring it up now: (John 7:15) 15 Therefore the Jews fell to wondering, saying: “How does this man have a knowledge of letters, when he has not studied at the schools?” (pre-2013 NWT) (John 7:15) 15 And the Jews were astonished, saying: “How does this man have such a knowledge of the Scriptures when he has not studied at the schools?” (2013 NWT) The older version could be saying something specific about literacy, where the second is referring to knowledge of Scripture itself.

There are about 4 sides to this story, and each has a little bit of truth to it. The one with the most truth and the most evidence behind it is the one that Allen Smith (PhD) gives here: https://www.fedsmith.com/2013/10/11/ronald-reagan-and-the-great-social-security-heist/ This differs from another version, actually almost identical to SSA's own version, found on the same Website, https://www.fedsmith.com/2015/12/08/the-myth-of-the-missing-social-security-trust-fund/ But if you read between the lines, it's easy to see that most of the second version is just spin (propaganda) that actually ends up supporting the first link. It inadvertently admits many of the key points necessary to understand the fraud. The first link blames Reagan, Greenspan and Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, and Obama, who have given evidence that they actually understood the scheme, but were happy to go along with it. My youngest son, in 2012, took economics courses from his university's Economics Dept Chair, who was simultaneously one of Obama's primary economics advisors. My son came away from these classes believing that economics at this school was the most corrupt of all their departments, claiming to teach modern western economics as if it were a science, but angrily denouncing certain questions about facts as if they were really running a cult. At any rate the first link must be read before a realistic discussion of Social Security can start. The basic idea is that Reagan and Greenspan were con men who ripped off the SSA for $2.7 Trillion with no plan to pay back a cent. They needed it because supply-side "trickle-down economics" (Reaganomics) was a complete failure, but they couldn't admit it. The money was used to avoid an even bigger deficit and was used in order pay for the highest priority government programs like: temporary, pseudo-tax breaks for middle class that can be nullified through fees and other new costs put upon the middle class (including the taxing of Social Security by Reagan), actual permanent tax breaks for the rich, spending to enrich military contractors, slush funds for internal government spending. One point of the article is that SSA is not unfixable because it was never broken in the first place. These 20-year-out projections have always been lies that were not based in reality. There is no fund to dip into. It is true that there is borrowing trouble now, but the plan to cover population age disparity was already built into the fund that Reagan figured out how to "loot." It was exactly what would have now been needed to cover the level of borrowing that is now being done to cover the next 20 years, until the age population disparity evens out again.

Bill Nye is more of a "promoter" than a scientist. He definitely does not belong in the same category as Richard Feynman. I've read two of Feynman's books and they are really good, and reflect true science. I loved "What do you care what other people think?" because it draws non-scientists into his world. Echos of your doppelgangers here. They always have said the same thing about the 1975 fiasco. It's true that no Watchtower literature ever contained a prediction that Armageddon would arrive in 1975. The point was that at some time in the 1970's we should expect Armageddon to be no further than a matter of months, not years, away. *** km 9/73 p. 1 par. 4 Intensive Tract Distribution *** Why is the distribution being done in such an intensive manner? Because of the impact that this will have on the public. People talk to one another, and they will soon realize that nearly everyone they know was served with the same urgent message. This will make a far deeper impression than would a gradual distribution over many months. Furthermore, we realize that the time remaining for this wicked world is greatly reduced. Opportunity for people to learn the truth and take their stand on Jehovah’s side is fast running out. *** km 5/74 p. 3 How Are You Using Your Life? *** Yes, since the summer of 1973 there have been new peaks in pioneers every month. Now there are 20,394 regular and special pioneers in the United States, an all-time peak. That is 5,190 more than there were in February 1973! A 34-percent increase! Does that not warm our hearts? Reports are heard of brothers selling their homes and property and planning to finish out the rest of their days in this old system in the pioneer service. Certainly this is a fine way to spend the short time remaining before the wicked world’s end. I started regular pioneering in the summer of 1973 and quit school even though I was technically still 15 years old, turning 16 before the next school year. I have to admit, it felt good being one of those statistics. My parents then, as a favor, sold our time-consuming farm worth about $50,000 (1974) at the time for only $10,000 to a brother and moved us all into the city. The brother we sold it to broke up the old farm acres into several subdivisions, got power and septic tanks to all the lots, and probably made a million dollars by now. He's no longer a Witness (and recently died too) but several Witness families still live on those acres. And of course, quitting high school at age 15 was not just recommended by circuit overseers. It was the subtext of the following prophecy made in Watch Tower publications in 1969, preparing us for "What Will the 1970s Bring?": **g69 5/22 p.15 "If you are a young person, you also need to face the fact that you will never grow old in this present system of things. Why not? Because all the evidence in fulfillment of Bible prophecy indicates that this corrupt system is due to end in a few years. . . . . Therefore, as a young person, you will never fulfill any career that this system offers. If you are in high school and thinking about a college education, it means at least four, perhaps even six or eight more years to graduate into a specialized career. But where will this system of things be by that time? It will be well on the way toward its finish, if not actually gone!" Awake!1969 May 22 p.15 And all of it was based on a totally unbiblical belief that each of the 7 creative days were 7,000 years in length, which supposedly made it significant that we were evidently coming up on then being 6,000 years into that seventh day. Why ever bring up the 6,000 years since Adam if we weren't pushing its supposed but unbiblical significance? *** w68 8/15 p. 499 pars. 29-30 Why Are You Looking Forward to 1975? *** That means, in the fall of the year 1975, a little over seven years from now (and not in 1997 as would be the case if Ussher’s figures were correct), it will be 6,000 years since the creation of Adam, the father of all mankind! Are we to assume from this study that the battle of Armageddon will be all over by the autumn of 1975, and the long-looked-for thousand-year reign of Christ will begin by then? Possibly, but we wait to see how closely the seventh thousand-year period of man’s existence coincides with the sabbathlike thousand-year reign of Christ. If these two periods run parallel with each other as to the calendar year, it will not be by mere chance or accident but will be according to Jehovah’s loving and timely purposes. Our chronology, however, which is reasonably accurate (but admittedly not infallible), at the best only points to the autumn of 1975 as the end of 6,000 years of man’s existence on earth. It does not necessarily mean that 1975 marks the end of the first 6,000 years of Jehovah’s seventh creative “day.” Why not? Because after his creation Adam lived some time during the “sixth day,” which unknown amount of time would need to be subtracted from Adam’s 930 years, to determine when the sixth seven-thousand-year period or “day” ended, and how long Adam lived into the “seventh day.” And yet the end of that sixth creative “day” could end within the same Gregorian calendar year of Adam’s creation. It may involve only a difference of weeks or months, not years. Then of course, in 1972 and 1973 the Watchtower promoted the "Ezekiel" book and other publications with the statement that the faithful and discreet slave was a prophet. Not just a "prophet" with quotes around it, but literally, a prophet. This was not very different from statements like this one in 1924 referring to Rutherford and another like him: *** g1924 p.149 *** " . . . Judge Rutherford is permeated with the real Biblical and prophetic spirit, ceases not in his discourse to defy the devil and throw (morally) an inkwell into his face, as the deceased Luther did. . . . This year 1924 is worse than 1914."