The 'Reasoning' book's discussion of the 'Cross'

[Evacuated]

6 hours ago, Anna said:

Really, it is irrelevant whether it was a cross or something else

Actually, it is not known on the basis of current evidence. So it is really a hiding to nothing or, more graphically, like flogging a dead horse to try and prove definitively what the instrument was on the basis of current evidence. Heroic attempts however, and ingenious argument all round!!

[JW Insider]

It seems like everyone who studies this subject in any depth, realizes the same thing.

11 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Actually, it is not known on the basis of current evidence.

 

17 hours ago, Anna said:

then there is no reason why it couldn't have been a cross.

 

On 3/16/2017 at 2:09 PM, AllenSmith said:

the ancient writers could NOT discern what method of crucifixion was implemented for Jesus.

 

On 3/15/2017 at 6:41 PM, scholar JW said:

We cannot be dogmatic about the shape, size or other physical characteristics of the instrument on which our Lord was hung

And the Watch Tower publications have said pretty much the same thing on many occasions. For example:

Quote

*** g74 9/22 p. 27 Did Jesus Die on a Cross? ***
Hence, the cross does not have what some might term a “Christian” origin. Of course, that does not mean that Jesus did not die on a cross.

 

So, seriously, does this mean the Watch Tower publications were being dishonest, or just sloppy when they said the following in 1995?

*** w95 5/15 p. 20 par. 20 Part 1—Flashes of Light—Great and Small ***
20 The book Riches, published by the Society in 1936, made clear that Jesus Christ was executed, not on a cross, but on an upright pole, or stake.

Or this in 2008:

Quote

*** w08 3/1 p. 22 Why Do Jehovah’s Witnesses Not Use the Cross in Worship? ***
Jehovah’s Witnesses firmly believe that the death of Jesus Christ provided the ransom that opens the door to everlasting life for those who exercise faith in him. (Matthew 20:28; John 3:16) However, they do not believe that Jesus died on a cross, as is often depicted in traditional pictures. It is their belief that Jesus died on an upright stake with no crossbeam.

 

Or this in 1975:

*** yb75 pp. 148-149 Part 2—United States of America ***
A few years later Jehovah’s people first learned that Jesus Christ did not die on a T-shaped cross. On January 31, 1936, Brother Rutherford released to the Brooklyn Bethel family the new book Riches. Scripturally, it said, in part, on page 27: “Jesus was crucified, not on a cross of wood, such as is 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.”

1992

*** w92 11/15 p. 7 The Cross—Symbol of Christianity? ***
The Bible shows that Jesus was not executed on a conventional cross at all but, rather, on a simple stake, or stau·rosʹ.

Or this is 1972:

*** w72 9/15 p. 572 Christendom—Fighter Against God ***
Tammuz was represented by the first letter of his name, which is an ancient tau, a cross. The “sign of the cross” was the religious symbol of Tammuz. . . . The cross, on which Christendom’s religions claim Christ was put to death (though it was actually a stake), is considered the foremost symbol of Christianity.

On the issue of whether "Tammuz was represented by the first letter of his name, which is an ancient tau" [Greek letter] we have this interesting piece of evidence for why the same could not be true of Jesus:

*** g76 11/22 pp. 27-28 Does Christianity Have a Visible Symbol? ***
The writer of this apocryphal work claims that IH represents the first two letters of “Jesus” in Greek. The T is viewed as the shape of Jesus’ death stake.
Concerning this passage, M’Clintock and Strong’s Cyclopædia states: “The writer evidently was unacquainted with the Hebrew Scriptures, and has [also] committed the blunder of supposing that Abraham was familiar with the Greek alphabet some centuries before it existed.”

I find it amazing that a researcher could notice this in 1976, yet not think to correct the Watchtower from just a couple years earlier in 1972.

The same article says:

*** g76 11/22 p. 27 Does Christianity Have a Visible Symbol? ***
But do not writers early in the Common Era claim that Jesus died on a cross? For example, Justin Martyr (114-167 C.E.) described in this way what he believed to be the type of stake upon which Jesus died: “For the one beam is placed upright, from which the highest extremity is raised up into a horn, when the other beam is fitted on to it, and the ends appear on both sides as horns joined on to the one horn.” This indicates that Justin himself believed that Jesus died on a cross.

This means that Watch Tower researchers already knew in 1976 that some Christians might have thought that Jesus had died on a two-beamed cross, long before the 4th century.

 

[scholar JW]

No, I believe that the WTS has been consistent about the simple fact that Jesus died on a stake and not a cross and the evidence, textual, linguistic and historical testifies to this. However, there is no place for dogmatism on this matter but simply following the evidence which is cumulative to where it leads and that is again to the simple fact that Jesus died on a single piece of wood and not a two piece instrument. Another point that I have considered that when one considers the possible size weight of the suspension device, the attempted carrying of such by a already weakened man over very rough terrain for some distance it would have been impossible for Jesus or any man including Samson to carry out such a task especially a cross but not so for a stake. So, the mechanics alone favours the stake over the cross on that point alone,imagine alone just not support the thesis. Any tradesman who has had to carry a ladder or plank would understand this difficultyin attempting such a task unless aided by another person for two are better than one.

scholar JW

[Anna]

 

3 hours ago, scholar JW said:

However, there is no place for dogmatism on this matter

I would say this should be primary because it really does not matter on what type of instrument Jesus died does it? I mean it should not matter to Jehovah's Witnesses, but it might matter to Christendom since the cross is THEIR symbol. Or could it be because the cross is Christendom's symbol it became so abhorrent to Rutherford and others, so much so that they tried to find any evidence to contradict it? This is of course speculation on my part, but given the climate around that time, when the the Bible Students became increasingly aware that the cross had no place in true worship, and later, Rutherford's aggressive campaign against false religion, mainly Christendom ("religion is a snare and a racket") it would have seemed to give the right impetus to take another look at the instrument of Jesus' death and to try and find evidence against the cross. JWI mentions the book Riches by Rutherford: "On January 31, 1936, Brother Rutherford released to the Brooklyn Bethel family the new book Riches. Scripturally, it said, in part, on page 27: “Jesus was crucified, not on a cross of wood, such as is 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.”

The truth is that most historical paintings depict Jesus nailed to a cross. This of course does not mean that this was fact, but merely that the artists and almost everyone throughout the centuries sometime after Jesus' death believed that the cross was what Jesus died on. The question is, which came first; the belief that Jesus died on a cross, or the belief that the cross is a "Christian" symbol therefor Jesus must have died on a cross? Didn't Constantine become a believer when he supposedly had a vision of the cross? ......

Ann and Allen's research shows that really one cannot be a 100% sure of the instrument of Jesus' death. JWs of course do have to take some kind of stand but it is good if we can say we believe Jesus probably died on a stake rather than be dogmatic about it and insist he DID die on a stake. Just think how funny it will be if in the new system we get to find out he actually died on a cross. But since whether he did or didn't, shouldn't play a fundamental role in our faith, then we will not need to feel embarrassed. The opposite could be true also.

As a side note, the paradoxical thing is that Rutherford mentions that "Jesus was crucified by nailing his body to a tree.” The word crucified itself means being nailed to a crux or the cross....just a silly observation 

......then there is of course the crux simplex...the upright stake. Going to have to do some research on the etymology of the word crux...

 

3 hours ago, scholar JW said:

the attempted carrying of such by a already weakened man over very rough terrain for some distance it would have been impossible for Jesus or any man including Samson to carry out such a task especially a cross but not so for a stake.

I thought the idea was that Jesus carried the stake and someone else carried the cross beam (or vice versa). Then these two pieces of wood were nailed together on site...

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, Anna said:

 

5 hours ago, scholar JW said:

the attempted carrying of such by a already weakened man over very rough terrain for some distance it would have been impossible for Jesus or any man including Samson to carry out such a task especially a cross but not so for a stake.

I thought the idea was that Jesus carried the stake and someone else carried the cross beam (or vice versa). Then these two pieces of wood were nailed together on site...

Note that the Insight book says the following...

*** it-1 p. 1191 Impalement ***
Most Bible translations say Christ was “crucified” rather than “impaled.” This is because of the common belief that the torture instrument upon which he was hung was a “cross” made of two pieces of wood instead of a single pale, or stake. Tradition, not the Scriptures, also says that the condemned man carried only the crossbeam of the cross, called the patibulum, or antenna, instead of both parts. In this way some try to avoid the predicament of having too much weight for one man to drag or carry to Golgotha.

As Allen has already mentioned, there are traditions that the trees and poles that Romans used were often already in place, and were often re-used. I can't help but think of the amount of work we used to put into making a five foot high fence. Anyone who has tried it knows that even when you have wedged rocks or concrete to add to the hole, you still need to start with a 7 or 8 foot pole, and then use a sledge to drive two or three feet of it into the ground at least a foot deeper than the original hole. And you might still need some extra wooden supports. Now imagine a pole that needs to stand at perhaps 7 feet or more in the air for purposes of display and humiliation, and hold up to 200 pounds. It could not fall over during wind and rain, and no one should be able to push it over. It would need to start out like a 10 foot telephone pole. This is another reason that a victim might carry his cross, or board, or stake in the form of a crossbeam or patibulum.

If the executed person was first nailed to the crossbeam, which could be a board, plank, pole, beam or tree branch, he could then be raised up onto the pole or tree to which that patibulum was also then nailed or fastened. Therefore, the crossbeam becomes the instrument of his execution in the same was that a lynched person might be said to executed by the instrument of a rope, even though a tree or wooden gallows might also be utilized.

The Bible gives us the impression that Jesus was nailed to a tree, although this doesn't necessarily mean it was a living tree with branches. But if he was carrying one thing (like a beam) and then attached to something else, like a tree, then it would make sense that he might have been carrying a crossbeam of some kind. Whether his hands were nailed to one single place on that crossbeam (like the middle), or in two different places on that crossbeam (like each of the ends), it wouldn't matter because in either case his arms would be above his head when that beam was nailed or attached to the tree. Either way makes sense from the perspective of the Bible text.

[Anna]

28 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

 It would need to start out like a 10 foot telephone pole. This is another reason that a victim might carry his cross, or board, or stake in the form of a crossbeam or patibulum.

 

That makes a lot of logical sense. So really, there could have been two stakes, the ones already in the ground, and then smaller stakes (the cross beams) which the victim carried. This would not necessarily contradict the scriptures since they do not specify WHAT stake (stauros) Jesus carried. And also by saying Jesus was hung on a stake does not necessarily exclude a cross beam either.

[Anna]

15 minutes ago, AllenSmith said:

Also, the WTS has also been on record that God nor Christ would have associated their divinity to such a pagan symbol.

If I understand what you mean, then I think you are wrong. The whole abominable performance was wrong and atrocious right from the start. And Jehovah allowed it. He allowed Christ to be executed as a criminal (in the eyes of the pagans) in a most degrading way. Why would it matter that the tool of execution might have also been a pagan symbol, since it was performed by pagans?

[Anna]

2 minutes ago, AllenSmith said:

Your right, you didn't. There's a big difference with the manner of Christ execution than that what would have been acceptable by Christ to use, much less God.

So what are you saying? Are you saying Christ had a choice in what was used?

[Evacuated]

2 hours ago, Anna said:

Why would it matter that the tool of execution might have also been.....etc

Actually, with respect it probably did matter in this case. Additionally, Jehovah can ensure that events take place His way, regardless of tradition, normal practice, or any other influence one cares to imagine.

If someone could sensibly explain what Paul had in mind when he wrote at Gal. 3:13:

"Christ purchased us, releasing us from the curse of the Law by becoming a curse instead of us, because it is written: “Accursed is every man hung upon a stake" "

it might be interesting.

Only, make it real, please. I don't want to spend the rest of my life crossing and uncrossing Taus!
 

[Ann O'Maly]

15 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

W. E. Vine, respected British scholar, offers these hard facts: “By the middle of the 3rd cent. A.D. . . . pagans were received into the churches . . . and were permitted largely to retain their pagan signs and symbols. Hence the Tau or T, . . . with the cross-piece lowered, was adopted.”—Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words.

Vine further notes that both the noun “cross” and the verb “crucify” refer to “a stake or pale . . . distinguished from the ecclesiastical form of a two beamed cross.” In agreement with this, Oxford University’s Companion Bible says: “The evidence is . . . that the Lord was put to death upon an upright stake, and not on two pieces of timber placed at any angle.” Clearly, the churches have adopted a tradition that is not Biblical.

With this just one example, we can see the WTS drew its conclusion from scholarly evidence and proper research,

I already discussed in my OP how Vine's and the Companion Bible is outdated and flawed. The Companion Bible's conclusion ("The evidence is thus complete that the Lord was put to death upon an upright stake...") is an erroneous one due to the author having both incomplete evidence (e.g. not accounting for the Oxyrhyncus discoveries) and relying on faulty scholarship (e.g. Hislop).

16 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

Therefore, there is NO indication the WTS or it’s anointed ones have erred. They only error I can see is from what has been posted thus far from other religious people.

As pointed out in the OP, the WTS and its anointed have used poor source material or ignored key information to form their conclusions. False premises result in false conclusions, i.e. error.

At least they finally corrected their long-held misconception that Jesus was impaled, so that's a tiny bit of progress.

[Anna]

17 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Actually, with respect it probably did matter in this case. Additionally, Jehovah can ensure that events take place His way, regardless of tradition, normal practice, or any other influence one cares to imagine.

Yes, that is true of course, but why do you think it mattered?

19 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

If someone could sensibly explain what Paul had in mind when he wrote at Gal. 3:13:

"Christ purchased us, releasing us from the curse of the Law by becoming a curse instead of us, because it is written: “Accursed is every man hung upon a stake" "

I know it's a rhetorical question because I am sure you have something in mind already, but I still think it didn't necessarily mean it excluded a cross beam. It would have been perhaps unnecessarily descriptive to have to say "Accursed is every man hung upon a stake with a cross beam". But at the same time of course it could have been just that, a stake and nothing else. To be honest I would prefer it if it was that way. I don't like the idea of Christ nailed to a cross. But I just cannot make that claim a 100% as I really don't think anyone knows a 100%. Bearing in mind also the actual physics of carrying a pole thick enough in circumference to support a man and long enough to sit securely in the ground with enough height for a man to be suspended far enough above ground (JWI made a simple calculation). Would it be possible for a man to drag a pole that size quite some distance, perhaps over a kilometer? It seems to make more sense that the vertical poles were already in place, and secured in the ground. So then could a cross beam be called a torture stake? One could still be hung upon it. But then again how would the victim be hoisted up onto the vertical stake, with a cross beam having to be nailed to it. Anyone who has done a bit of carpentry knows a horizontal beam can't just be nailed to a vertical beam without it moving all over the place, it has to be secured properly. I haven't researched that....it's kind of gruesome. All in all I think history is a bit unreliable and I don't care what anyone says, but we cannot trust it 100%. That's why I don't like to be dogmatic about any topic like this.

19 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

 I don't want to spend the rest of my life crossing and uncrossing Taus!

I hear you. I don't either!

[JW Insider]

19 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

If someone could sensibly explain what Paul had in mind when he wrote at Gal. 3:13:

"Christ purchased us, releasing us from the curse of the Law by becoming a curse instead of us, because it is written: “Accursed is every man hung upon a stake" "

I think the best way to address it is to look carefully at the word used for "stake" and see how else it gets used in the Bible. This is mostly from the NWT Appendix 5C:

Of course, Paul is quoting from Deut 21:22,23 which says:

(Deuteronomy 21:22, 23) 22 “And in case there comes to be in a man a sin deserving the sentence of death, and he has been put to death, and you have hung him upon a stake*, [*footnote: tree, wood] . . . something accursed of God is the one hung up; - NWT

In the Hebrew Scriptures, the word translated "stake" is used about 328 times, and over 300 of those times it can be correctly translated as "tree" or "wood" or (when plural) "trees" or "timber" So it could easily mean "tree" in this case.

(Deuteronomy 21:22, 23, KJV) And if a man have committed a sin worthy of death, and he be to be put to death, and thou hang him on a tree:

But in the few times when it can be translated as something else, it clearly means wooden things like stick, branch, staff, gallows, plank. In the context of hanging someone up, "stake" does not always appear to be the most appropriate, but it's still possible. In the context of hanging from it, we have a description of Haman and Mordecai's gallows:

(Esther 7:9, 10) . . .“Haʹman also prepared a stake for Morʹde·cai, whose report saved the king. It is standing at Haʹman’s house, 50 cubits high.” At that the king said: “Hang him on it.” 10 So they hanged Haʹman on the stake that he had prepared for Morʹde·cai, and the king’s rage subsided. - NWT

(Esther 6:4) . . .having Morʹde·cai hanged on the stake that he had prepared for him. - NWT

A 75-foot high "gallows" sounds like more than a single, simple stake, and the Hebrew gives a sense that it was prepared, (produced, worked on, fashioned, wrought) not merely "put up."

(Esther 7:9, ESV)Then Harbona, one of the eunuchs in attendance on the king, said, “Moreover, the gallows that Haman has prepared for Mordecai, whose word saved the king, is standing at Haman’s house, fifty cubits high.”

But here below we have what is apparently a single beam, probably from a vertical beam from 8 to 12 feet in height.

(Ezra 6:11) And by me an order has been put through that, as for anybody that violates this decree, a timber will be pulled out of his house and he will be impaled upon it, and his house will be turned into a public privy on this account. - NWT

The Greek word for all these Hebrew items in the LXX is 'xylon' and it's, of course, the word Paul uses in Galatians 3:13. And here again, it is can be translated "tree" or "wood" in most other places in the Greek. 13 of 19 times.

(Acts 13:29) And when they had fulfilled all that was written of him, they took him down from the tree,and laid him in a sepulchre. - KJV

(Gal 3:13) Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree - KJV

 

(Revelation 2:7) 7 Let the one who has an ear hear what the spirit says to the congregations: To the one who conquers I will grant to eat of the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God.’ - NWT

But it can even be the word for stocks:

(Acts 16:24) . . .Because he got such an order, he threw them into the inner prison and fastened their feet in the stocks.

For what it's worth, my take on this is that there is such a wide range of possibility, that this is just more evidence that it didn't really matter what the instrument looked like exactly, and there was definitely no specific description that we could or should "draw" from to create an important symbol.

The description of how words like stauros were used is also informative in that in earlier Greek, it seems to refer more often to a simple stake, as it was used especially by Greek writers hundreds of years before the Bible was written in Greek. But as the world got more acquainted with the Roman form of "crucifixion" the word tends to connote an upright pole and crossbeam. But we have seen that this is only suggestive of a more likely form used in Jesus' day, nothing definitive.

I like what Allen included that showed that the standard upright and crossbeam form was more popular and the quote from Seneca and Josephus, below, because it implies a wide variety of postures which are much more likely if the crossbeam were employed:

'So the soldiers, out of the rage and hatred they bore the prisoners, nailed those they caught, in different postures, to the crosses, by way of jest

Much of the book Allen quoted from is available on Google.  https://books.google.com/books?isbn=1451414196

Crucifixion: In The Ancient World And The Folly Of The Message Of The Cross (Facets)

by Martin Hengel and John Bowden

I am glad Allen quoted from it and brought it to our attention. It seems to be an excellent source, and it also speaks to the wide variety that keeps us from saying anything dogmatic or definitive.