Stake or Cross? How did Jesus die? What proof do we have?

[Srecko Sostar]

13 hours ago, Anna said:

I don't know....I will have to try that. But I very much doubt if I made it known that I don't agree with the point made in the What does the Bible really teach book or the What does the Bible teach us book (which replaces the Bible teach book) where it categorically states on page 213  that Jesus did not die on a cross that I would get disfellowshipped or be declared an Apostate. In fact it would be a good idea if this statement was changed, and I may write a letter to Bethel to that effect. And not an anonymous letter, one with my name and return address on it. And I will let you know what reply I get, ok?

Hi. You do not need to declare in all details how you got information's. Just say; some people around me in some situations while talking about Bible, give me some evidence and reasoning about issue, so this was disturbed me and intrigued me in measure that i have to hear from you what you thinking about it. Do you have some new historical and scientific research? Do brothers making any new research on subjects? :))))

[JW Insider]

13 hours ago, Outta Here said:

Where did this idea come from ?

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.

 

[JOHN BUTLER]

@Anna Quote : ".were you really expecting Thomas to say " “Unless I see in his wrists the print of the nails"? 

My thoughts are that Thomas was there and he saw exactly how Jesus was killed. So if he indeed said hands then hands it would have been. (Unless you think Thomas lied ?)

However if the Greek word for hands could easily have meant wrists, then why would the GB not have it written as wrists ? After all they are 'supposed to be' guided by Holy Spirit are they not ? 

[Evacuated]

9 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

After all they are 'supposed to be' guided Holy Spirit are they not ?

Strange comment this.

Either you know what it means to be "guided by holy spirit",  or you do not.

If you do know, then the comment is malicious. If you don't know, then how are you guided? 

[JW Insider]

12 hours ago, Outta Here said:

And where are these from???

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."

[Baruq JW]

7 hours ago, Anna said:

were you really expecting Thomas to say " “Unless I see in his wrists the print of the nails"?

I can not speak for the English language as it is not my mother tongue, but in both French and Italian, no one would use the word hand to talk about the wrists. The hand is one thing, the wrist is another.

[JOHN BUTLER]

13 minutes ago, Outta Here said:

Strange comment this.

Either you know what it means to be "guided by holy spirit",  or you do not.

If you do know, then the comment is malicious. If you don't know, then how are you guided? 

It's called sarcasm O.H. 

The GB pretend to be guided by Holy Spirit and  JW's assume that the GB are guided by Holy Spirit, BUT there is quite a lot of evidence that the GB are NOT guided by God's Holy Spirit. 

You only have to look through topics on this forum to see the evidence that the GB are NOT GUIDED by GOD'S HOLY SPIRIT. 

MALICIOUS ? Um, do i intend to do harm to the GB ?  NO.......

My hope is for Almighty God our Heavenly Father to have a clean Organisation here on this Earth, for Him to work through. Whether that be a cleansed JW Org, or a different Organisation altogether is God's own choice. 

My purpose is to warn others of the   misconception that the JW org is clean and upright and is being used by God at this time............. Because there is so much proof that the JW Org is not in God's favour right now. 

[JW Insider]

8 hours ago, Anna said:

Some years ago the WT did depict Jesus with a nail through his hands, but there has been a debate among scholars whether it could have really been the palms of the hands because they recon that the weight of the body would have ripped through the flesh as there are no transverse bones across the metacarpals, whereas if the nail was in the wrist (carpals) then there would be more resistance because it's all bone.

The PDF linked earlier, "Jehovah's Witnesses and the Cross" Leolaia, 1990, speaks of semantic restriction by which some Watchtower doctrines have developed by focusing on only the simplest etymological meaning of a word like parousia or stauros or xylon, etc. In the case of "hand" there was found good reason to go with semantic expansion to fit our traditional beliefs on the subject.

Of course, this is not the only way that we (and, frankly, all Christian-associated religions  and others, too) solve problems of textual understanding. We could have used the method of resolving apparent contradictions by merely making up a third story that allows for a strict sense of the text to be true. For example, we have two versions of the death of Judas in the gospel accounts:

• (Matthew 27:5-8) . . .So he threw the silver pieces into the temple and departed. Then he went off and hanged himself. 6 But the chief priests took the silver pieces and said: “It is not lawful to put them into the sacred treasury, because they are the price of blood.” 7 After consulting together, they used the money to buy the potter’s field as a burial place for strangers. 8 Therefore, that field has been called Field of Blood to this very day.

• (Acts 1:18, 19) 18 (This very man, [Judas] therefore, purchased a field with the wages for unrighteousness, and falling headfirst, his body burst open and all his insides spilled out. 19 This became known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, so that the field was called in their language A·kelʹda·ma, that is, “Field of Blood.”)

To accommodate a strict-sense reading of both versions, we merely make up a third story that makes both versions true. We say that Judas bought the field in the sense that he provided the money even though others bought it. We also say that Judas hung himself but since there is no mention of falling in the first, and no mention of hanging in the second, we say that while hanging himself the branch broke and he died from the fall when his body burst open.*

So the WTS could have solved the supposed problem created by a strict-sense use of the word "hands" by merely adding a third story, not in the text, that Jesus may also have been bound to the stake in addition to being nailed. I read of a Roman slave carrying the patibulum through the public streets on their way to execution and having that patibulum tied to the arms of the slave. The patibulum of course, could become the crossbeam of an upright stake.

The fact that no third story like this, however plausible, has been suggested tells me that "semantic expansion" has been the solution, and this is the easiest idea to support from the Greek and from Scriptural usage of "hand."

*I think it's "funny" that when Papias (60 AD - 130 AD?) went to Palestine hoping to find first-hand corroboration of some of these early accounts he discovered completely different versions. For example, Judas was supposed to have blown up so big and fat, like a balloon, that he burst asunder and all his guts (fecal matter) were spread around. (His weight could have been part of a "third story" solution that explained a breaking branch!) The versions Papias learned told of Judas in this same condition, I think, being run over by a chariot (so that his fecal matter spread around on the ground). Mentioning the spread of someone's fecal matter as a most disgusting death was not limited to pagans. It is very explicit in the account of how Ehud kills "fat king, Eglon." And it's implicit in the idea that dogs ate up the body of Jezebel in the plot of Jezreel.

I saw this at https://www.gotquestions.org/nails-hands-wrists.html

• While historical scholars are uncertain of the nail placement in Jesus’ crucifixion, or anyone else’s for that matter, the Bible simply says that Jesus had wounds in His hands (John 20:25-27). The Greek word translated “hands” is cheir, which means literally “hands.” There is no Greek word for “wrists” in the New Testament, even though some versions translate Acts 12:7 to say that the chains fell off Peter’s wrists. But the Greek word in this verse is also cheir.
• It's possible that the nails may have been angled to enter through the hand and exit through the wrist, but it's just as likely that the nails were driven straight through the hand somewhere near the base of the thumb. Experiments have shown that both ways do work and either way could have been used in the crucifixion of Jesus.

I have also read that the "experiments" were some "scientist" nailing up cadavers to test the theory. Evidently just the hands alone actually could support the weight of any corpse he tried. Weird science.

[JOHN BUTLER]

Well at least this topic, and in fact this forum gives many people good reasons to use their brains, do research, and get involved in deep discussions. Mental exercise is as good as physical exercise, and spiritual exercise beats all  .. Have a great day everyone  

[JW Insider]

On 11/14/2018 at 6:48 AM, JOHN BUTLER said:

After all they are 'supposed to be' guided by Holy Spirit are they not ? 

I suppose you are referring to the fact that most Witnesses think that "spirit-directed organization" refers to the idea that the persons responsible for directing the WT organization would therefore have a greater measure of Jehovah's holy spirit, or at least a special measure of holy spirit specifically for the work of guiding and directing what counts as "spiritual food."

*** wp17 No. 1 p. 15 Is It Just a Small Misunderstanding? ***

• The holy spirit also moves more knowledgeable Christians to come to the aid of those seeking greater understanding.—Acts 8:26-35.

*** w17 February p. 24 par. 5, 10-14 Who Is Leading God’s People Today? ***

• Christians in the first century recognized that the governing body was directed by Jehovah God through their Leader, Jesus. How could they be sure of this? First, holy spirit empowered the governing body. (John 16:13) Holy spirit was poured out on all anointed Christians, but it specifically enabled the apostles and other elders in Jerusalem to fulfill their role as overseers. For example, in 49 C.E., holy spirit guided the governing body . . . .  In 1919, three years after Brother Russell’s death, Jesus appointed “the faithful and discreet slave.” For what purpose? To give his domestics “food at the proper time.” (Matt. 24:45) Even in those early years, a small group of anointed brothers who served at headquarters in Brooklyn, New York, prepared and distributed spiritual food to Jesus’ followers. . . . .  the Governing Body to focus on providing spiritual instruction and direction.
• Evidence of holy spirit. The holy spirit has helped the Governing Body to grasp Scriptural truths not previously understood. . . .  Surely, no human deserves credit for discovering and explaining these “deep things of God”! The Governing Body echoes the apostle Paul, who wrote: “These things we also speak, not with words taught by human wisdom, but with those taught by the spirit.” . . . . can anything other than holy spirit explain the rapid increase in spiritual understanding since 1919?
• Evidence of angelic assistance. The Governing Body today has the colossal task of overseeing an international preaching work involving over eight million evangelizers. Why has that work been so successful? For one, angels are involved.

What I think that many persons might find confusing here is that the article specifically used examples of how wrong we have been in the past as proof of the direction of holy spirit, otherwise how would the Governing Body have been able to make so many changes to its own false doctrines. The same article included these words:

• The Governing Body is neither inspired nor infallible. Therefore, it can err in doctrinal matters or in organizational direction. In fact, the Watch Tower Publications Index includes the heading “Beliefs Clarified,” which lists adjustments in our Scriptural understanding since 1870. Of course, Jesus did not tell us that his faithful slave would produce perfect spiritual food. So how can we answer Jesus’ question: “Who really is the faithful and discreet slave?” (Matt. 24:45) What evidence is there that the Governing Body is filling that role? Let us consider the same three factors that directed the governing body in the first century.
• 13 Evidence of holy spirit. The holy spirit has helped the Governing Body to grasp Scriptural truths not previously understood. For example, reflect on the list of beliefs clarified that was referred to in the preceding paragraph. Surely, no human deserves credit for discovering and explaining these “deep things of God”!

I think the biggest source of confusion is the contradiction between the idea that we don't yet have perfect knowledge and yet Jesus promised his disciples:

• (John 15:26-16:13) 26 When the helper comes that I will send you from the Father, the spirit of the truth, which comes from the Father, that one will bear witness about me; 27 and you, in turn, are to bear witness, because you have been with me from the beginning. . . . . For if I do not go away, the helper will not come to you; but if I do go, I will send him to you. . . .  13 However, when that one comes, the spirit of the truth, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak of his own initiative, but what he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things to come.

The contradiction is pretty obvious:

• The Governing Body claims to be directed by holy spirit;
• The holy spirit was supposed to guide Christians into all the truth when it was poured out in 33 CE after Jesus was no longer present;
• The Governing Body admits to a long list of errors going back over 100 years;
• Many of these new errors and false doctrines were introduced after Jesus was supposed to be present again in 1914.

The Second Adventists (and Seventh Day Adventist branch) resolved the issue by calling their false doctrines "Present Truth." If doctrines were found to be false and therefore changed, then the new doctrines were "present truth" and those past false doctrines were "present truth" at the time, even if time proved them to actually be false. Clever! It was based on a mistranslation/misinterpretation of 2 Peter 1:12. But in the tradition of Second Adventists, we (Bible Students/JWs) also needed to adopt the same solution, especially because we were promoting pieces of a chronology that was continually being proven false. For many years, the Watchtower used 2 Peter 1:12 to defend the idea of "present truth." We now admit that it was based on a mistranslation/misinterpretation. But it remained in Watchtower vocabulary for many years. At one time the doctrine has been so important it was capitalized.

*** w52 4/1 p. 219 An International Assembly in Rome ***

• those who had already come to the truth must keep up with present truth. They must appreciate what the Lord provides through his organization and study diligently.

*** yb88 p. 139 Korea ***

• The Watch Tower of August 15, 1914, printed a fascinating letter addressed to Brother Russell, stating: “I am a stranger to you in one sense; but I came to a knowledge of Present Truth through your writings just twenty-two months ago. For some time I have been anxious to write and tell you of my special appreciation of the Truth, but circumstances did not permit until now.

The real solution, I think, is found in Jesus' words about what the "spirit of truth" would lead them to. Truth is not the same as "accurate knowledge." Jesus said it would focus on three things: the truth about sin, righteousness and judgment:

• (John 16:7-11) . . .For if I do not go away, the helper will not come to you; but if I do go, I will send him to you. 8 And when that one comes, he will give the world convincing evidence concerning sin and concerning righteousness and concerning judgment: 9 first concerning sin, because they are not exercising faith in me; 10 then concerning righteousness, because I am going to the Father and you will see me no longer; 11 then concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world has been judged.

For other things, like this issue of cross vs stake, we should have absolutely no problem telling the truth about it. The truth is that we cannot be dogmatic. The truth is that we don't really have proof one way or another. It is NOT the truth to say that "Jesus was therefore executed on a single upright stake." But the truth is very accessible. All we have to do is say that, based on current evidence, Jesus may have been executed on a single upright stake, but there is also evidence that he may have been executed on a dual-beamed cross. It appears that both of these methods, and several others, could fall within the meaning of the term "stauros" found in the Scriptures.

So we have no reason to believe that holy spirit has not already led Christians "into all the truth." We even know the truth about cross versus stake.

[JW Insider]

20 hours ago, Anna said:

On 11/13/2018 at 12:54 AM, JW Insider said:

the dual-beamed cross itself (as an instrument of torture/execution) is well-known from pre-Christian usage.

I have trouble finding evidence of that. Can you post some links?

Not much, so perhaps I shouldn't have said "well-known." But I think this is a place to start, based on the "Leolaia" PDF:

• The second semantic expansion probably occurred around the second century B.C. or sometime thereafter. During the Punic Wars (264-146 B.C.), the Romans encountered the Phoenician version of crucifixion and swiftly appropriated it as a means of capital punishment for slaves. . . .  the Romans converted it into a brutal torture machine. This was accomplished by adding a second piece of wood called the patibulum to the execution stake, as well as a thorn-shaped sedile upon which the victim rested his weight. [J. B. Torrance, The New Bible Dictionary, ed. by J. D. Douglas, et. al., (Grand Rapids, M.I.: Eerdmans, 1962), p. 279.]

Then the Leolaia article gives an example of the use of the patibulum alone for a slave's torture in the first century BC from Dionysius of Halicarnassus quoted from "Roman Antiquities." (which is very similar to the  description given in the Bible about Jesus' punishment). There is no evidence here of the patibulum also being suspended on an upright pole, although the practice of displaying executed slaves and criminals on a pole as a warning for years prior to this had been known.

But Plutarch spoke of the the patibulum attached to the pole of a wagon to prop it up. This easily produces an image of a two beamed cross as a method of torture. Even though the wagon's beam is kept basically horizontal to the ground, and not upright, the slave would still need have the patibulum attached as a crossbeam. Otherwise he would need to walk sideways if his arms (stretched out on the patibulum) were attached to the wagon in the same direction, rather than nearer to a perpendicular angle.

The entire idea of the word patibulum as used in Latin implies a certain "perpendicular" use when used as a torture device, but this was probably because it is perpendicular to the upright standing body. I see that the same Leolaia author has provided a few pages worth of references on the Latin word patibulum here:

https://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/211929/patibulum-fragile-theory?page=6

Part of the idea shows how common it was in the first centuries after Christ's execution, and then uses these proven connotations of the associated vocabulary to show how the same meaning makes perfect sense of quotes that come from a century or so prior to Christ's execution. That's not a perfect method, but the evidence favors the conclusion, especially because some of these ideas were built into the language associated with executions as far back as the third century BCE. I'll reproduce a chunk of the quotation below for those who would prefer not to go an "apostate" source. But first just three of the quotes found in the PDF. (I have not taken the time to double-check the longer quotes I added to the end of the post.)

The primary quotes to indicate a two-beamed torture device would come from Plautus who lived mostly in the third century B.C.E. The PDF contains a few quotes that give the full picture when pieced together.

• Frateor, manus vobis do. Et post dabis sub furcis. Abi intro--in crucem.  I admit it, I hold up my hands! And later you will hold them up on a furca. Do go along in for crucifixion!
• Credo ego istoc extemplo tibi esse eundum actutum extra portam, dispessis manibus, patibulum quom habebis. I suspect you're doomed to die outside the gate, in that position: Hands spread out and nailed to the patibulum.
• Patibulum ferat per urbum, deinde adfigatur cruci.   I shall bear the patibulum through the city; afterwards I shall be nailed to the crux.

---------------- Here are some longer relevant quotes from jehovahs-witness.com forum to finish off this post --------------------

Thus within the story, the character threatened with patibulum-bearing understood it as pertaining to crucifixion. And just before this scene, immediately before the entrance of the character who would threaten him with patibulum punishment, Sceledrus stated his fear that his master would "put me up on the cross (sustollat in crucem)" (line 309). So it is clear here that patibulum-bearing is connected with crucifixion. The second reference to patibulum-bearing in Plautus can be found in Mostellaria, where the jealous slave Grumio threatens his rival Tranio: "Oh sieve of the executioners (carnuficium cribrum), I believe they will pierce you with goads through the streets (per vias) with you attached to a patibulum (patibulatum), as soon as the old man returns" (Mostellaria, 55-57). The reference to executioners indicates that capital punishment is in view here. Then in line 352, Tranio announces the return of his master Theopropides (the old man referred to by Grumio) and he is sure that he is doomed to execution, just as predicted by Grumio (erus advenit peregre, periit Tranio). Then he offers money to anyone at the party willing to take his place: "I’ll give a talent to that man who shall be the first to run to the cross (in crucem excucurrerit) for me but on the condition that his arms and legs are double-nailed (offigantur bis pedes bis brachia)" (lines 359-360). The context thus relates Tranio’s expected carrying of a patibulum through the streets with Tranio’s expected hastening forwards (excurrere) to the crux where his arms and legs would be nailed. And then at that end of the play, Theopropides himself declares that Tranio would be crucified: "I’ll have you carried to the cross (ego ferare faxo in crucem), as you deserve" (line 1133). All of this shows that Grumio’s reference to patibulum-bearing pertains to crucifixion. The third reference is in the play Carbonaria (Fragmenta, 2) "Let him carry his patibulum through the city (patibulum ferat per urbem), and then be fastened to the cross (deinde adfigatur cruci)". This makes explicit what was implicit in the other two passages; patibulum-bearing for the punished slave ends with crucifixion. The historian Licinius (first century BC) also made a similar comment: "Bound to patibula they are led around (deligati ad patibulos circumferuntur) and they are fastened to the cross (et cruci defigntur)" (Historiae Romanae, 21). If these people are fastened to the cross while still bound to patibula, then this implies the addition of the patibula to the cross; there is no mention here of their removal. Since Plautus describes patibulum-bearing as involving a pose of hands spread out to the side, the addition of the patibulum to the cross would produce the same pose on the cross itself, which is precisely the kind of pose described in crucifixion on a stauros or crux by Seneca, Lucian, Tertullian, and others.

The Lex Puteoli Inscription (first century BC) is somewhat ambiguous because it is unclear whether it describes patibulum-bearing or workers bringing patibula to the execution site: "Whoever will want to exact punishment on a male slave or female slave at private expense, as he who wants the punishment to be inflected, he exacts the punishment in this manner: If he wants to bring the patibulum to the cross (in crucem patibul[um] agere), the contractor will have to provide wooden beams (asseres), chains, and cords for the floggers and the floggers themselves. And anyone who will want to exact punishment will have to give four sesterces for each of the workers who bring the patibulum (patibul[um] ferunt) and for the floggers and also for the executioner. Whenever a magistrate exacts punishment at public expense, so shall he decree; and whenever it will have been ordered to be ready to carry out the punishment, the contractor will have gratis to set up crosses (cruces statuere), and will have gratis to provide nails, pitch, wax, candles, and those things which are essential for such matters" (II.8-12). As you point out, this may simply be a matter of workers bringing the patibulum along with other materials to set up the execution apparatus, in which case it wouldn't refer to patibulum-bearing. Even if this is the case, this is still a matter of the patibulum being brought to the crux, which is itself set up (statuere) at the execution site, so it is clear here that patibulum is not synonymous with crux. But John Cook (NT, 2008) makes a pretty convincing case that the inscription refers to patibulum-bearing by the victim. The verb agere, which is loosely translated "bring" by Cook, has more of a sense of "impel, push", which is intelligible in the case of forced patibulum-bearing involving floggers (indeed, it is the usual word for referring to the driving of animals under a harness or yoke). The floggers may thus have been the workers who move or impel the patibulum to the cross by flogging the slave carrying it. Since patibul[um] is incomplete in the text, it is also possible that the word was patibulatum and the sense is "If he wants to impel the person attached to the patibulum to the cross". The phrase in crucem agere, in fact, occurs elsewhere, where it pertains to the person condemned to the cross: "You dared to lead someone off to the cross (in crucem tu agere ausus es)" (Cicero, In Verram 2.5.163), "He was led off to the cross (in crucem ageretur)" (Cicero, In Verram 2.5.165), "The student is led off to the cross (agitur paedagogus in crucem)" (Calpurnius Flaccus, Declamationum 23), "A prostitute leads off to the cross her slave who is in love with her (meretrix servum suum amantem se in crucem agit)" (Calpurnius Flaccus, Declamationum 33), etc. As for Seneca, he describes (in Consolatio ad Marciam 20.3) the spreading out of the arms on a patibulum as a pose that can be beheld in crosses (cruces), and as mentioned earlier, he also mentions this same pose when referring to the crux itself (De Ira 1.2.2). In your reply to my post, you make reference to Seneca's De Vita Beata, 19.3 as using the word crux interchangeably with stipes. If true this does not militate against viewing the patibulum as an object brought to the crux, for we have already seen that Plautus, Licinius, and the Lex Puteoli speak of the patibulum being brought to the cross, whether bound to a prisoner or not, and since crucifixion did not necessarily involve crossbeams either, the simple stipes was just as legitimately a crux as a cross with a crossbeam. But as argued above, I do not believe that Seneca conceives of a simple cross in this passage nor is necessarily using the word stipes interchangeably with crux. The stipes was mentioned in a reference to the compelling of prisoners to the crucifixion site: "When brought to punishment (ad supplicium acti) they suspend each individual on a stipes (stipitibus singulis pendent)". This uses a form of agere, the same verb used in Cicero, Calpurnias Flaccus, and in the Lex Puteoli. If Seneca was thinking of the compelling of a patibulatum (a person bound to a patibulum), as suggested by the use of patibulum later in the same passage, then indeed the patibulatum would have probably been taken to a stake (stipes) set up at the execution site (cf. Cicero, In Verram 2.5.66, 169 on the rather permanent installation of crosses at execution sites outside the city). At any rate the stipes is what the person was suspended on, whether bound to a patibulum or not. And since Seneca elsewhere used the term patibulum in connection with hand-stretching and since the given passage uses the word distrahere "to draw in different directions, divide apart" to describe the stretching out of the victim on the crux (reminiscent of the use of distendere in reference to the stretching apart of limbs on the crux in De Ira), I do think indeed that Seneca is envisioning a crux that has a crossbeam in place. Finally, it is not clear that Seneca had a crux simplex in mind in Epistula 101. If he did, it would not have been a reference to suspension on a stake by nailing the hands and feet but rather a literal impaling of the body internally on a pointed stake (which Seneca did call a crux in in Consolatio ad Marciam 20.3), for Maecenas' prayer and Seneca's comment on it concern the victim sitting (sedere) on the piercing cross (acutam crucem). But Justus Lipsius' interpretation of this passage as pertaining to internal impalement on a sharpened stake is not conclusive. It is equally feasible to interpret the passage as relating to the thorn-like sedile ("seat") on which the victim rested his or her weight. Justin Martyr (Dialogue, 91) described the crucified (hoi stauroumenoi) as riding atop a horn (keras) in the middle (en tò mesò), Irenaeus (Adversus Haereses 2.24.4) similarly referred to the victim as reposed (requiescat) on one of the five points of the cross (crucis summitates habet quinque), and Tertullian (Adverses Nationes 1.12) described the cross as having both a crossbeam (antemna) and a "projecting seat" (sediles excessu). A cross with such a resting block installed would appropriately be a "piercing cross". Maecenas also uses the verb suffigere in his reference to crucifixion (suffigas licet et acutam sessuro crucem subas, "You may nail me up and set my seat upon the piercing cross"), which could feasibly refer to impalement but which normally (along with adfigere and figere) has reference to nailing in crucfixion contexts. In his comment on Maecenas, Seneca describes this kind of execution as a "lingering death" (diu mori), where one would "waste away in pain (tabescere), dying limb by limb (perire membratim), letting out his life drop by drop, rather than expiring once for all" (Epistula 101.13-14). This too seems like a more appropriate description of crucifixion (which most agree involved a rather long, gradual death) instead of internal impalement (which probably brought death quickly). The reference to "dying limb by limb" is also indicative of crucifixion, as it involves the nailing of limbs, something not involved in internal impalement.

 

[JW Insider]

22 hours ago, Anna said:

In fact it would be a good idea if this statement was changed, and I may write a letter to Bethel to that effect. And not an anonymous letter, one with my name and return address on it.

I would not risk it. You have relatives in the organization. It's not that this one point on its own should get you disfellowshipped, but remember that you are dealing with imperfect judges. On questioning, even if you are in agreement with the current "cross/stake" understanding, someone could still believe that you're taking issue with this "little thing" and this means that you are therefore unfaithful in "big things." They might therefore ask you if you truly believe that the Governing Body is the equivalent of the Faithful and Discreet Slave that was appointed in 1919. You and I and others here could easily see what might be wrong with the question and explain a position that is perfectly in line with Scripture and should satisfy the elder. But it's an imperfect system and won't always work out as planned. You could easily let slip something that causes the elder not to hear anything else you say.

Anonymous is still safest.

And I'd look for an innocuous angle that could encourage a re-evaluation by the researchers or writers in the Writing Department. But it shouldn't admit that you yourself have researched the question and come to a different conclusion. That implication is worse for sisters than for elders. But couched in the question of a Bible student (if it's true) or if it is merely a question about  how something confused someone, then this might have a desired effect -- assuming that the desired effect is to encourage a new and more comprehensive evaluation of all available evidence.

I sent an anonymous letter earlier in the year to a specific member of the Governing Body. I did not admit to reading Hurtado, of course, because that could immediately prejudice this brother. As soon as he would look up the author he would find easily several reasons to reject anything related to his books. So, I based a question on the wording of this particular article:

*** w08 3/1 p. 22 Why Do Jehovah’s Witnesses Not Use the Cross in Worship? ***

• 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.

I said that putting this reason right up there at the front as if it were the real foundation of why we don't use the cross in worship seems confusing. Surely, we don't deny the that the sun is a bright round object in the sky with rays of light beaming from it. Pagans might depict it this way and worship it, but the thing that is wrong is not how they depict the sun, but it's the fact that they feel a need to venerate the sun, a creation, as if it were itself a god or the creator. So what does it matter if more evidence might come to light that indicates that the "stauros" was actually a two-beamed cross as depicted in traditional pictures?