Jesus may not have died on the cross, Christian scholar claims.

[Thomas Walker]

On 03/09/2015 at 7:08 AM, Sheep said:

The author of the article Bill Underwood has written many articles that mirror what Jehovah's Witnesses believe. Take a look at this sampling. So, is he or isn't he?

 

Don't know if this is the same guy.

[Sheep]

17 hours ago, Thomas Walker said:

Don't know if this is the same guy.

 

Apparently, yes. See this topic:

 

 

[GeordieGirl]

Bill Underwood is a brother of many years standing. 

 

Ressurection Day was his second book and he has just written his 3rd but I can't remember what it is called.

 

He used to write for the Examiner before it closed down.

 

This is his blog/page. 

http://www.biblefriendlybooks.com/

Edited December 10, 2017 by GeordieGirl

[Brother_Bliss]

On 12/8/2017 at 10:38 PM, Omoyeme said:

Bro. Angle, do you still have that particular blog? Or have you permanently removed it?

 

I moved the page a while back. I fixed all my links to it in this topic....

 

https://robertangle.com/ruminations/jesus-christ-may-not-have-died-on-cross/

[retroHelen]

Here it is again because it's coming up in a talk next week. - Recycling an old but good thread.

[Hammerhead]

took a bible study outside under his porch railing and asked him to spread his arms and pretend he was on a cross and let his weight hang. he did so and it stretched his arms. then i said he could hang there for days like that. next i had him cross his arms above his head and hang his weight. it nearly smothered him. he could not breath, forcing him to stand erect. i showed him the scripture where the other two had their legs broken so they would die. he got the point. still never done anything with it

Sent from my SM-G892U using Tapatalk

[hatcheckgirl]

http://www.asor.org/anetoday/2018/11/The-Cross-History-Art-and-Controversy

This article discusses the cross in art.  It notes that the cross was generally not depicted in the artwork of the early Christians.  Funny that....

 

From the article:

What many do not know, however, is that surviving evidence demonstrates the image of an actual image of the cross did not appear with any regularity in Christian iconography before the mid-fourth century. Depictions of Jesus’s crucifixion took even longer to emerge and cannot be clearly identified before the early fifth century and not in any numbers before the sixth. The lack of earlier examples is difficult to explain, particularly given the fact that early Christian documents do not shy away from discussing, defending, and describing the mode of Jesus’s death. While reasons for the apparent absence of cross and crucifix are unclear (it may be that the image was either too graphically gruesome or too sacred), many scholars connect its first appearance with a vision of the cross ascribed to the Emperor Constantine just prior to his battle with his rival Maxentius in 312. 

[SUNRAY]

A sister posted this picture on Instagram..Not wanting to show her, I cropped it and the post..but you get the idea..

[annakot]

I didn’t want to create an extra new topic for this so I searched if there was one already.....

 

The Bible teach book p. 204 reasons that the most convincing proof that Jesus was not nailed to a cross is Paul’s reference to Deuteronomy 21:22,23* when he says in Galatians 3:13  

“Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law having become for us a curse for it has been written cursed is everyone hanging on a tree” (Ξύλου/ xylon/ wood)

 

*Deuteronomy 21:22,23 If a man commits a sin deserving the sentence of death and he has been put to deaths and you have hung him on a stake, (עֵֽץ׃/tree/timber/wood/log/lumber/pole)  his dead body should not remain all night on the stake. Instead, you should be sure to bury him on that day, because the one hung up is something accursed of God, and you should not defile your land that Jehovah your God is giving you as an inheritance.

 

The question is, did the Jews drive a nail through the criminals hands/wrists/ and feet, or how did they hang him? Jesus was obviously nailed to the implement of torture, but I guess you can still say he hung there. Paul was not being specific about how Jesus was attached to the tree, but we know from the other accounts Jesus was nailed to the “tree”.  

 

Then the next question is; was the execution of Jesus an exact replica of the Jewish execution?   

I see three differences between the Hebrew and Greek instances

1.

a) The Jewish criminal was executed by fellow Jews

b) The Jewish “criminal” Jesus, was executed by the Romans (although it was the Jews who ensured the execution, still, Pilate gave the order)

 

2.

a) we don’t know for certain how the Jewish criminal was "attached" to the “tree”

b) we do know how Jesus was "attached" to the “tree”

 

3.

a). The Jewish criminal was already dead when he was hung on a "tree" (The criminal was usually stoned to death)

b). The Roman custom was to hang criminals on a "tree" while alive.

 

So following from there, is it possible that the exact implement on which Jesus was executed also differed slightly from the implement the Jewish criminal was hung on? Both were obviously made of wood, but were used by different executioners. Would it have changed Paul’s meaning if both  implements were slightly different, depending on the custom of each party? (Jewish vs. Roman).

 

Would it have made any difference if Jesus was nailed to a cross beam instead of a an upright stake?

 

 

[hatcheckgirl]

4 hours ago, annakot said:

Would it have made any difference if Jesus was nailed to a cross beam instead of a an upright stake?

No, not to me.  It's still the implement of his death, and not to be venerated whatever the form it was.

[carlos]

7 hours ago, annakot said:

The Bible teach book p. 204 reasons that the most convincing proof that Jesus was not nailed to a cross is Paul’s reference to Deuteronomy 21:22,23* when he says in Galatians 3:13  

“Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law having become for us a curse for it has been written cursed is everyone hanging on a tree” (Ξύλου/ xylon/ wood)

[...]

I see three differences between the Hebrew and Greek instances

So following from there, is it possible that the exact implement on which Jesus was executed also differed slightly from the implement the Jewish criminal was hung on? Both were obviously made of wood, but were used by different executioners. Would it have changed Paul’s meaning if both  implements were slightly different, depending on the custom of each party? (Jewish vs. Roman).

[...]

Would it have made any difference if Jesus was nailed to a cross beam instead of a an upright stake?

Ana, you are right, there are differences in the way Jews and Romans hung people on a stake. Jesus could have died on a cross and that wouldn't have changed anything. But the shape of Jesus' death instrument is not what is discussed in that paragraph. Rather it's the point that Jesus' way of execution was a "curse", something shameful.

 

The question that appendix is answering is "Why True Christians Do Not Use the Cross in Worship". It gives two reasons for that:

 

1) Jesus didn't die on a cross.

 

2) Jesus' death was a shameful death and a curse (Galatians 3:13) so a Christian wouldn't decorate his house with an image of the instrument of that death.

 

This second argument is valid no matter the shape of the instrument, whether a cross, an upright stake or whatever. It doesn't make sense to venerate the instrument Jesus' was cursed with. Besides, that would amount to idolatry.

 

When the paragraph says "the most convincing proof of all, however, comes from God’s Word" it doesn't mean the most convincing proof that Jesus didn't die on a cross, but that Christians shouldn't use crosses in their worship.

 

Then, to add more weight to that conclusion, it adds that Christians didn't use crosses in their worship during the first 300 years after Jesus' death. Actually, the cross was a pagan symbol adopted by apostate Christians in the 4th century "apparently, to make it easier for pagans to accept 'Christianity.'"

 

[dove]

2 hours ago, carlos said:

Ana, you are right, there are differences in the way Jews and Romans hung people on a stake. Jesus could have died on a cross and that wouldn't have changed anything. But the shape of Jesus' death instrument is not what is discussed in that paragraph. Rather it's the point that Jesus' way of execution was a "curse", something shameful.

 

The question that appendix is answering is "Why True Christians Do Not Use the Cross in Worship". It gives two reasons for that:

 

1) Jesus didn't die on a cross.

 

2) Jesus' death was a shameful death and a curse (Galatians 3:13) so a Christian wouldn't decorate his house with an image of the instrument of that death.

 

This second argument is valid no matter the shape of the instrument, whether a cross, an upright stake or whatever. It doesn't make sense to venerate the instrument Jesus' was cursed with. Besides, that would amount to idolatry.

 

When the paragraph says "the most convincing proof of all, however, comes from God’s Word" it doesn't mean the most convincing proof that Jesus didn't die on a cross, but that Christians shouldn't use crosses in their worship.

 

Then, to add more weight to that conclusion, it adds that Christians didn't use crosses in their worship during the first 300 years after Jesus' death. Actually, the cross was a pagan symbol adopted by apostate Christians in the 4th century "apparently, to make it easier for pagans to accept 'Christianity.'"

 

Yes, I believe it was the 'T' from the pagan god Tammuz ?

[minister159]

2 hours ago, carlos said:

 

When the paragraph says "the most convincing proof of all, however, comes from God’s Word" it doesn't mean the most convincing proof that Jesus didn't die on a cross, but that Christians shouldn't use crosses in their worship.

 

 

 

I disagree with your statement above.

 

"Nevertheless, true Christians do not use the cross in worship. Why not? An important reason is that Jesus Christ did not die on a cross."

 

It's clear to me that the argument presented is that Jesus didn't die on a cross for these reasons ...... and "the most convincing proof of all, however, comes from God’s Word. The apostle Paul says: “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 [“a tree,” King James Version].’” (Galatians 3:13) Here Paul quotes Deuteronomy 21:22, 23, which clearly refers to a stake, not a cross."

 

Then it adds this additional reason as to why we wouldn't decorate our homes with images of Christ on a cross, "Since such a means of execution made the person “a curse,” it would not be proper for Christians to decorate their homes with images of Christ on a cross."

 

 

[carlos]

6 hours ago, minister159 said:

I disagree with your statement above.

Then we are reading that article differently, Ken. The reference to Deuteronomy by the apostle Paul can be used indeed to prove that a stake or a tree was meant, not a cross. But I think in that appendix it's used to highlight a different point. Different brains, different ways to organize the information.

 

I have noticed that older publications went to long distances to proof that Jesus didn't die on a cross. They included lots of quotations from encyclopedias and dictionaries to clarify the meaning of the words stauros and xylon. Yet in the most recent publications that approach has changed. They now concentrate on the idea that it doesn't make sense to worship the instrument of Jesus' death, whatever its shape was. Most people today, even Christians, will get lost if you begin speaking about Greek or Hebrew words. But a simple illustration showing how absurd it would be to carry as an ornament an image of the gun used to kill someone dear to you can have a powerful effect.

[Loopy]

2 minutes ago, carlos said:

 But a simple illustration showing how absurd it would be to carry as an ornament an image of the gun used to kill someone dear to you can have a powerful effect.

That’s my favorite way to explain it as well. Clear and very much to the point. 

[annakot]

On 11/11/2018 at 9:35 AM, carlos said:

But the shape of Jesus' death instrument is not what is discussed in that paragraph. Rather it's the point that Jesus' way of execution was a "curse", something shameful.

Carlos, I understood it the same way as @minister159  when he quotes the Bible teach book "Nevertheless, true Christians do not use the cross in worship. Why not? An important reason is that Jesus Christ did not die on a cross". In context it seems that the reason why we don't use the cross in worship is because it wasn't a cross. (So using a stake like object would be ok? A rhetorical question of course)

That is why I brought the topic up, because it was making the real reason, that we shouldn't venerate any object regardless what shape, a little obscure.

 

On 11/11/2018 at 9:35 AM, carlos said:

This second argument is valid no matter the shape of the instrument, whether a cross, an upright stake or whatever. It doesn't make sense to venerate the instrument Jesus' was cursed with. Besides, that would amount to idolatry.

Yes, that is the most important point.

 

The Bible teach book says that there is no evidence that Jesus died on a cross for the first 300 years after his death, (which is correct) but there is no evidence that he died on an upright stake either. One of the reasons there is no evidence is because the earliest "Christian" art that we know of (in the catacombs of Rome from the 2nd Century) did not depict the instrument of Jesus' death. On top of that, the Bible itself does not precisely describe the shape of the instrument either. It merely says it was "wood" "timber" . The Bible Teach book uses several secular arguments, especially the Companion Bible quote: "“[Stau·rosʹ] never means two pieces of timber placed across one another at any angle . . . There is nothing in the Greek of the [New Testament] even to imply two pieces of timber.” The companion Bible was authored E.W Bullinger, an Anglican clergyman and ultradispensationalist theologian. This is merely his understanding.

 

Then there are other arguments presented, like the Christian Scholar quoted at the outset, the subject of this post.

 

*Any artifacts I have been able to find so far dating to pre-Christian times seem to depict objects of torture in the form of upright stakes, or (crux simplex) on which people were usually impaled, but sometimes hung. (Assyrian, Babylonian, etc.) There is nothing really showing what the Romans in Jesus' day used. There are some descriptions of it by early church fathers such as Josephus ( 37- 100 CE) but no descriptions by eye witnesses. And no description in the scriptures.

 

If I was to form a conclusion with all the evidence available (there is much more but I tried to keep it short and simple) then I would be more inclined to believe that Jesus was indeed nailed to an upright stake or crux simplex,  rather than a stake with a cross beam. However, like I said, there is no conclusive proof.....So  I feel uncomfortable categorically stating that "Jesus did not die on a cross" because really there isn't enough clear evidence to prove that. There is nothing proving that it couldn't have been a cross, and that the Romans had not adopted that kind of shape to execute criminals. After all, the Romans were pagan. 

 

Assyrian crucifixion (911–612 BC)

 

 

 

 

 

 

[carlos]

11 hours ago, annakot said:

Carlos, I understood it the same way as @minister159  when he quotes the Bible teach book "Nevertheless, true Christians do not use the cross in worship. Why not? An important reason is that Jesus Christ did not die on a cross". In context it seems that the reason why we don't use the cross in worship is because it wasn't a cross. (So using a stake like object would be ok? A rhetorical question of course)

That is why I brought the topic up, because it was making the real reason, that we shouldn't venerate any object regardless what shape, a little obscure.

I agree with your reasoning, that's why I think that second point should be understood the way I explained, which makes a lot more sense. That Jesus didn't die on a cross is an interesting detail that adds weight to our decision not to use the cross but it's not the main reason. The main reason is that worshipping objects is idolatry.

 

11 hours ago, annakot said:

If I was to form a conclusion with all the evidence available (there is much more but I tried to keep it short and simple) then I would be more inclined to believe that Jesus was indeed nailed to an upright stake or crux simplex,  rather than a stake with a cross beam. However, like I said, there is no conclusive proof.....So  I feel uncomfortable categorically stating that "Jesus did not die on a cross" because really there isn't enough clear evidence to prove that. There is nothing proving that it couldn't have been a cross, and that the Romans had not adopted that kind of shape to execute criminals. After all, the Romans were pagan. 

Hmmm. Ultimately I have to agree, we cannot state with 100% certainty that Jesus didn't die on a cross because none of us was there to see it and there are no detailed descriptions nor depictions of that artifact by eyewitnesses. But I wouldn't say "there is no evidence that he died on an upright stake either" as if proof were 50/50. IMO the evidence in favor of an upright stake is overwhelming. Let me summarize some reasons:

 

Eyewitnesses of Jesus' death use two words to refer to the instrument of Jesus' death: stauros and xylon. (I know you know, please bear with me.)

 

In any dictionary you check, stauros means a pole or an upright stake. Homer first used this word to refer to a palisade made of stauroses. I don't know of any single pre-Christian greek text where that word is used to mean a cross. It's funny that those same dictionaries usually add that, only when used in the NT, that word means "a cross". That doesn't make much sense, does it? Did Christian writers use that word with a different meaning than the rest of the world? Why would they do that?

 

Bible writers call that same instrument a xylon. Xylon means a tree, a trunk or a stick. In Greek sources it was never used to refer to a cross, except in late literature from apostate Christendom. That's the term used in the LXX to translate the stake from Deuteronomy or the stake Haman built to hang Mordecai. Practically all Bible translations render this word as "stake" because translating it as cross would be dishonest.

 

So even if stauros could be used in rare occasions to refer to an upright pole with one or several cross-beams attached, the use of xylon discards that was the case in Jesus' execution. That shows that when anyone in the first century heard the words stauros or xylon they thought of an upright pole, not a cross. There was no need to further explain the shape of the instrument.

 

Interestingly, Lucian of Samosata, a satirist from the 2nd century C.E., wrote a book ("The passing of Peregrinus") in which he ridicules Christians and calls Jesus "that sophist of theirs that was fastened to a stake". The word used by Lucian is skolops, which refers to a thorn or a pointed stake, not a cross. So even among non-Christians the widespread notion was that Jesus died on a stake.

 

Besides linguistical arguments, there is another reasoning that sounds very convincing to me. Josephus is universally considered the best source for the practice of crucifixion in Judea in Roman times. He relates in chapter 11 of his "Jewish War" that during the siege of Jerusalem in the year 70, Roman soldiers would crucify the Jews who tried to escape the besieged city by the hundreds. They nailed them to "crosses" (stauros in the Greek original) in all kinds of humiliating and fancy positions, just for fun, and exhibited them in front of the wall to discourage others from escaping. There were so many of them that a a certain point "room was wanting for the crosses, and crosses wanting for the bodies". Now think of this. Judea is rather a desert land which doesn't have many trees. And the Roman army had already cut down thousands of trees to build "a fortification of pointed stakes" that encircled the whole city. As Josephus admits, there was no wood left in the area. Knowing this, and knowing the practical and rather thrifty character of Romans, do you think they would use two stakes for every prisoner, with the additional work of having to cut slots in both pieces and then waste nails to fix them, when they could use only one, save the work and the nails and execute a double amount of people? It doesn't make sense. Here our best source for the practice of crucifixion actually suggests that the Romans didn't use crosses at that time to execute their prisoners, but used one-piece upright stakes instead. There is no proof, archaeological or otherwise, that Romans used crosses to execute prisoners in the first century.

 

It's very true that Christians didn't use the cross nor depicted the instrument of Jesus' death for 300 years. There was no need to, everybody knew what a stauros was like. I visited the Roman cataccombs and they were filled of Christian and "Christian" symbols, but as you mentioned, there is not a single cross there. In fact our guide, who was a Catholic priest besides an archaeologist, confirmed that. Even when the apostate church adopted the cross in the 4th century, it still was not considered the instrument of Jesus death, but rather a symbol of good luck, as it was among the pagans. It was only much later that the cross was identified with the stauros.

 

 

Edited November 13, 2018 by carlos

[annakot]

7 hours ago, carlos said:

I agree with your reasoning, that's why I think that second point should be understood the way I explained, which makes a lot more sense. That Jesus didn't die on a cross is an interesting detail that adds weight to our decision not to use the cross but it's not the main reason. The main reason is that worshipping objects is idolatry.

 

Hmmm. Ultimately I have to agree, we cannot state with 100% certainty that Jesus didn't die on a cross because none of us was there to see it and there are no detailed descriptions nor depictions of that artifact by eyewitnesses. But I wouldn't say "there is no evidence that he died on an upright stake either" as if proof were 50/50. IMO the evidence in favor of an upright stake is overwhelming. Let me summarize some reasons:

 

Eyewitnesses of Jesus' death use two words to refer to the instrument of Jesus' death: stauros and xylon. (I know you know, please bear with me.)

 

In any dictionary you check, stauros means a pole or an upright stake. Homer first used this word to refer to a palisade made of stauroses. I don't know of any single pre-Christian greek text where that word is used to mean a cross. It's funny that those same dictionaries usually add that, only when used in the NT, that word means "a cross". That doesn't make much sense, does it? Did Christian writers use that word with a different meaning than the rest of the world? Why would they do that?

 

Bible writers call that same instrument a xylon. Xylon means a tree, a trunk or a stick. In Greek sources it was never used to refer to a cross, except in late literature from apostate Christendom. That's the term used in the LXX to translate the stake from Deuteronomy or the stake Haman built to hang Mordecai. Practically all Bible translations render this word as "stake" because translating it as cross would be dishonest.

 

So even if stauros could be used in rare occasions to refer to an upright pole with one or several cross-beams attached, the use of xylon discards that was the case in Jesus' execution. That shows that when anyone in the first century heard the words stauros or xylon they thought of an upright pole, not a cross. There was no need to further explain the shape of the instrument.

 

Interestingly, Lucian of Samosata, a satirist from the 2nd century C.E., wrote a book ("The passing of Peregrinus") in which he ridicules Christians and calls Jesus "that sophist of theirs that was fastened to a stake". The word used by Lucian is skolops, which refers to a thorn or a pointed stake, not a cross. So even among non-Christians the widespread notion was that Jesus died on a stake.

 

Besides linguistical arguments, there is another reasoning that sounds very convincing to me. Josephus is universally considered the best source for the practice of crucifixion in Judea in Roman times. He relates in chapter 11 of his "Jewish War" that during the siege of Jerusalem in the year 70, Roman soldiers would crucify the Jews who tried to escape the besieged city by the hundreds. They nailed them to "crosses" (stauros in the Greek original) in all kinds of humiliating and fancy positions, just for fun, and exhibited them in front of the wall to discourage others from escaping. There were so many of them that a a certain point "room was wanting for the crosses, and crosses wanting for the bodies". Now think of this. Judea is rather a desert land which doesn't have many trees. And the Roman army had already cut down thousands of trees to build "a fortification of pointed stakes" that encircled the whole city. As Josephus admits, there was no wood left in the area. Knowing this, and knowing the practical and rather thrifty character of Romans, do you think they would use two stakes for every prisoner, with the additional work of having to cut slots in both pieces and then waste nails to fix them, when they could use only one, save the work and the nails and execute a double amount of people? It doesn't make sense. Here our best source for the practice of crucifixion actually suggests that the Romans didn't use crosses at that time to execute their prisoners, but used one-piece upright stakes instead. There is no proof, archaeological or otherwise, that Romans used crosses to execute prisoners in the first century.

 

It's very true that Christians didn't use the cross nor depicted the instrument of Jesus' death for 300 years. There was no need to, everybody knew what a stauros was like. I visited the Roman cataccombs and they were filled of Christian and "Christian" symbols, but as you mentioned, there is not a single cross there. In fact our guide, who was a Catholic priest besides an archaeologist, confirmed that. Even when the apostate church adopted the cross in the 4th century, it still was not considered the instrument of Jesus death, but rather a symbol of good luck, as it was among the pagans. It was only much later that the cross was identified with the stauros.

 

 

I agree with you Carlos.

I also looked at some of the points you mention, that is why I said that looking at the evidence it leads one to an upright stake rather than a cross. I found it interesting that there are no depictions of a cross shape used in an execution before the 3rd century. It seems that those "cross" symbols (especially the Ankh and Greek) are found in ancient artifacts, of the near east, and far east, but never seem to be connected to any type of implement for torturing/executing people , but rather to jewellery, decoration, literature, and ritualistic and religious symbols. If a cross was used in execution I would have expected to see at least one representation of it, since people had no qualms about representing other gruesome scenes, such as people impaled (through the body) on a stake as pictured on the Assyrian tablet. But I am still looking and if I find something I will post it here

There are two things I came across, but they are not very convincing. One is the apparent depiction of Dionysus/Bacchus but I haven't been able to find out exact information about it only that it is supposed to be from 500 BCE.

 

 

Then there is a Vase, which is supposed to be also depicting Dionysus/Bacchus crucified. But I can't see that. I agree with the explanation given in that thread "It's significance was to antropomoriphize the idol as it would allow Dionysus to return to the world and participate in the ritual sacrifice and marriage to a queen. Before the idol are loaves of bread and jugs of wine, blessed by Dionysus himself". Also: "There's other vases from around the same period in which a choir of dithyrambs gather around a cross-shaped altar, and children carry a cross behind the carriage of the soon to be married queen". It looks like the thread has quite an interesting discussion, but I have not really had the time to read all the posts, just a couple. http://earlywritings.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4387

 

 

The other interesting thing is that historians confidently write that the Romans adopted the cross shape from these cultures, but again, there seem to be no nothing that I can find that depicts someone hanging from a cross shape. (Dating to before 3/4th century). It looks like historians are almost assuming this because of later depictions of Christ hanging on a cross. What does seem possible though is a gallows in the shape of a T to which the arms of the victim were tied at the top to the horizontal beam. I cannot imagine how they could have effectively tied a person to just an upright stake without the person sliding down. Of course if the person's hands/wrists were nailed instead of tied (as in case of Jesus) that would be a different matter entirely. There seems to be a big gap between the time of the use of a cross as a mere symbol and the time where the cross is being used as an implement of torture. Pretty much like the theory of evolution!

 

As you know, the the Catholic Encyclopedia in "Archæology of the Cross and Crucifix", after going into all kinds of detail about the shape and use of the cross admits that :

"Certain it is, at any rate, that the cross originally consisted of a simple vertical pole, sharpened at its upper end. Mæcenas (Seneca, Epist. xvii, 1, 10) calls it acuta crux; it could also be called crux simplex."  So, the Catholics seem certain about it! But still, I wish we changed our sentence in our publications from "Jesus did not die on a cross" to something like "evidence available indicates that Jesus probably did not die on a cross". Even better (in my opinion) would be to leave that out completely, because the real issue is that true Christians do not use any object (regardless of what it may have been) in worship because that would be idolatry. Well, maybe I should write a letter to Bethel .

 

By the way that's great that you have personal experience with visiting the catacombs. I have been to Rome numerous times and never went! If I get to go again I will be sure to put than on my agenda!

 

 

 

 

Edited November 13, 2018 by annakot

[Dages]

9 hours ago, carlos said:

Interestingly, Lucian of Samosata, a satirist from the 2nd century C.E., wrote a book ("The passing of Peregrinus") in which he ridicules Christians and calls Jesus "that sophist of theirs that was fastened to a stake". The word used by Lucian is skolops, which refers to a thorn or a pointed stake, not a cross. So even among non-Christians the widespread notion was that Jesus died on a stake.

That's a very interesting reference.

 

What do you think of this famous graffito? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexamenos_graffito

Edited November 13, 2018 by Dages

[carlos]

4 hours ago, annakot said:

But still, I wish we changed our sentence in our publications from "Jesus did not die on a cross" to something like "evidence available indicates that Jesus probably did not die on a cross". Even better (in my opinion) would be to leave that out completely, because the real issue is that true Christians do not use any object (regardless of what it may have been) in worship because that would be idolatry. Well, maybe I should write a letter to Bethel .

Well, that's more or less what they did. In the simplified Bible Teach book that is basically replacing the previous version that appendix (and all of them) has been removed, and there's no mention whatsoever of a cross or a stake.

 

4 hours ago, annakot said:

By the way that's great that you have personal experience with visiting the catacombs. I have been to Rome numerous times and never went! If I get to go again I will be sure to put than on my agenda!

Yes, we've visited the catacombs of St. Callixtus a couple times. The first time they were crowded and our guide (all guides are priests) was more interested in preaching to us about all the works of charity the Church does than in explaining the catacombs. But the second time it was raining, there were very few visitors, and the guide, who was a real expert, treated us with the "long tour". He even explained that Christians didn't use the cross for the first 300 hundred years, and explained how pagan ideas crept into the church.

 

2 hours ago, Dages said:

What do you think of this famous graffito? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexamenos_graffito

I have seen that before. It could be anything, since neither the image nor the text are clear. Scholars have used circular reasoning to interpret it: Since it apparently depicts a donkey on a cross, and Christians believe Jesus was crucified, it has to be a mockery of Jesus.

 

On the other hand, if Christians did not believe Jesus died on a cross, that could have represented anything. There's nothing in the picture suggesting that Alexamenos is a Christian or the donkey is Jesus.

[jayrtom]

12 hours ago, annakot said:

I wish we changed our sentence in our publications from "Jesus did not die on a cross" to something like "evidence available indicates that Jesus probably did not die on a cross". Even better (in my opinion) would be to leave that out completely, because the real issue is that true Christians do not use any object (regardless of what it may have been) in worship because that would be idolatry. Well, maybe I should write a letter to Bethel

The real issue is also the truth!  and the FDS is convinced that Jesus didn't die on coss shaped object but in a simple stake. You can find for example this recent Awake (2017) that talks about this. It also relates Paul's account to the fact that the object was just a stake - It is not just a supposition.... I think the reason this arguments are missing from the Bible Teach Box is just for simplicity sake, not that they don't have the same strong feeling about this fact

 

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/102017051#h=9

WHAT SOME PEOPLE SAY

 

The Romans executed Jesus by hanging him on a cross made of two pieces of wood.

WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS

 

Jesus was executed “by hanging on a tree.” (Acts 5:30, The New Jerusalem Bible) Both of the words used by Bible writers to describe the instrument of Jesus’ death suggest one piece of wood, not two. The Greek word stau·rosʹ, according to Crucifixion in Antiquity, means “a pole in the broadest sense. It is not the equivalent of a ‘cross.’” The word xyʹlon, used at Acts 5:30, is “simply an upright pale or stake to which the Romans nailed those who were thus said to be crucified.”*

The Bible also relates the method of Jesus’ execution to an ancient Israelite law. The law stipulated: “If a man commits a sin deserving the sentence of death and he has been put to death and you have hung him on a stake, . . . the one hung up is something accursed of God.” (Deuteronomy 21:22, 23) Referring to that law, the Christian apostle Paul wrote that Jesus became “a curse instead of us, because it is written: ‘Accursed is every man hung upon a stake [xyʹlon].’” (Galatians 3:13) Paul thus indicated that Jesus died on a stake—a single piece of wood.

[Witness1970]

I always felt that it didn't really matter as much whether or not Jesus was hung on a cross or a stake. The important thing to me is that the cross is a pagan symbol. 

[annakot]

11 hours ago, jayrtom said:

The real issue is also the truth!  and the FDS is convinced that Jesus didn't die on coss shaped object but in a simple stake. You can find for example this recent Awake (2017) that talks about this. It also relates Paul's account to the fact that the object was just a stake - It is not just a supposition.... I think the reason this arguments are missing from the Bible Teach Box is just for simplicity sake, not that they don't have the same strong feeling about this fact

 

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/102017051#h=9

Jesus was executed “by hanging on a tree.” (Acts 5:30, The New Jerusalem Bible) Both of the words used by Bible writers to describe the instrument of Jesus’ death suggest one piece of wood, not two. The Greek word stau·rosʹ, according to Crucifixion in Antiquity, means “a pole in the broadest sense. It is not the equivalent of a ‘cross.’” The word xyʹlon, used at Acts 5:30, is “simply an upright pale or stake to which the Romans nailed those who were thus said to be crucified.”*

The Bible also relates the method of Jesus’ execution to an ancient Israelite law. The law stipulated: “If a man commits a sin deserving the sentence of death and he has been put to death and you have hung him on a stake, . . . the one hung up is something accursed of God.” (Deuteronomy 21:22, 23) Referring to that law, the Christian apostle Paul wrote that Jesus became “a curse instead of us, because it is written: ‘Accursed is every man hung upon a stake [xyʹlon].’” (Galatians 3:13) Paul thus indicated that Jesus died on a stake—a single piece of wood.

 

To me, saying "tree"  is not convincing enough for me to think of one piece of wood. After all, a tree consists of an upright trunk and horizontal branches, and trees growing in arid areas have very short trunks, for example the olive tree*. Also using secular arguments for something that historians and archaeologists can only speculate on, is not convincing either (for me).

 

Now in the case of the Jews ( Deut 21:22,23) hanging someone on a tree, meaning just an upright pole or stake,  could be physically problematic. Have you tried hanging anything on an upright pole? Like a coat for example? You would have to drape it over the top, or hang it on a nail in the pole. Now think of a man, who weighs on average 180lbs. How would he be hung on there? I don't think the Jews nailed anyone to the "tree". If they were to hang someone they would have perhaps tied him like the native north Americans tied people to the totem pole. But without any support on the feet, (some kind of platform) this person would slide down the pole. So maybe the Jews  used one of the branches of the tree to secure the person. The thought is that when the Romans hung criminals on the stake they would tie their arms to a transverse bar at the top, so they wouldn't slide down. When the Assyrians hung criminals on a single stake they simply impaled them through the rib cage (see clay tablet of Assyrian execution I posted above).

 

Further, thinking about it logically, how would Paul describe the instrument when no eyewitness actually described the torture device of Jesus.  When Paul said that "accursed is a man hung upon a stake, in reference to Deut  21:22,23 which is a translation of tree or wood (xylon)" he was referencing when Jews hung a criminal on the tree and I already suggested that there is no description of what this "tree" actually looked like, and the problem with how a person would be hung.

 

Another interesting thing to think about is, lets say you have grown up in the jungle, and you have no knowledge of civilization and no real vocabulary and you were raised by a pack of wolves (joke). You have no idea of the word cross and you have never used two pieces of wood in the shape of a cross. But you are familiar with a single stake because you used to use it for various things. As a spear for hunting, as a spit for cooking what you caught, and maybe as a walking stick, and of course since you live in a forest you are familiar with trees, especially the tree trunk. We tell you (for simplicity sake) these pieces of straight wood are called a stake. Now suppose we took you to see something hanging on an actual stake with a short cross bar at the top and we asked you to tell us what this object is hanging on? I think you get the point. So my reasoning is, would any of the Bible writers find it necessary to name an object, of which a stake was the main part, anything else than a stake? (Since they didn't have a word for cross) Even if it had another part at the top? Remember, an actual description does not exist. Nowhere in the Bible is it written that it was a simple, single upright stake, or that it was an upright stake with another bar across the top.

 

Don't get me wrong, I personally believe that Jesus was most likely nailed to a single upright stake because he was not hung there by ropes, but he was nailed to it, so having a transverse bar would not have been necessary (such as when the Romans only used ropes they needed that cross bar in order to secure the arms).

But, and this was the point of my argument, we cannot know the truth about this 100% because there is just not enough Biblical nor secular  information. Most likely is not the same as definitely.

 

*Olive Trees

 

 

Edited November 14, 2018 by annakot
separated paragraph

[jayrtom]

12 hours ago, annakot said:

 

To me, saying "tree"  is not convincing enough for me to think of one piece of wood. After all, a tree consists of an upright trunk and horizontal branches, and trees growing in arid areas have very short trunks, for example the olive tree*. Also using secular arguments for something that historians and archaeologists can only speculate on, is not convincing either (for me).

 

Now in the case of the Jews ( Deut 21:22,23) hanging someone on a tree, meaning just an upright pole or stake,  could be physically problematic. Have you tried hanging anything on an upright pole? Like a coat for example? You would have to drape it over the top, or hang it on a nail in the pole. Now think of a man, who weighs on average 180lbs. How would he be hung on there? I don't think the Jews nailed anyone to the "tree". If they were to hang someone they would have perhaps tied him like the native north Americans tied people to the totem pole. But without any support on the feet, (some kind of platform) this person would slide down the pole. So maybe the Jews  used one of the branches of the tree to secure the person. The thought is that when the Romans hung criminals on the stake they would tie their arms to a transverse bar at the top, so they wouldn't slide down. When the Assyrians hung criminals on a single stake they simply impaled them through the rib cage (see clay tablet of Assyrian execution I posted above).

 

Further, thinking about it logically, how would Paul describe the instrument when no eyewitness actually described the torture device of Jesus.  When Paul said that "accursed is a man hung upon a stake, in reference to Deut  21:22,23 which is a translation of tree or wood (xylon)" he was referencing when Jews hung a criminal on the tree and I already suggested that there is no description of what this "tree" actually looked like, and the problem with how a person would be hung.

 

Another interesting thing to think about is, lets say you have grown up in the jungle, and you have no knowledge of civilization and no real vocabulary and you were raised by a pack of wolves (joke). You have no idea of the word cross and you have never used two pieces of wood in the shape of a cross. But you are familiar with a single stake because you used to use it for various things. As a spear for hunting, as a spit for cooking what you caught, and maybe as a walking stick, and of course since you live in a forest you are familiar with trees, especially the tree trunk. We tell you (for simplicity sake) these pieces of straight wood are called a stake. Now suppose we took you to see something hanging on an actual stake with a short cross bar at the top and we asked you to tell us what this object is hanging on? I think you get the point. So my reasoning is, would any of the Bible writers find it necessary to name an object, of which a stake was the main part, anything else than a stake? (Since they didn't have a word for cross) Even if it had another part at the top? Remember, an actual description does not exist. Nowhere in the Bible is it written that it was a simple, single upright stake, or that it was an upright stake with another bar across the top.

 

Don't get me wrong, I personally believe that Jesus was most likely nailed to a single upright stake because he was not hung there by ropes, but he was nailed to it, so having a transverse bar would not have been necessary (such as when the Romans only used ropes they needed that cross bar in order to secure the arms).

But, and this was the point of my argument, we cannot know the truth about this 100% because there is just not enough Biblical nor secular  information. Most likely is not the same as definitely.

 

*Olive Trees

 

 

 

Well, I think there is no doubt in the GB concerning the fact that Jesus died on a vertical, simple, stake... I don't know what the problem is to cite secular publications... They were cited only to reference the meaning of the words, which the general consensus is that none of the words refer to a cross shaped object (actually I didn't notice any source that understands it otherwise)

I don't see any logic in your reasoning about the tree... It would need to be a great coincidence to find a tree with the appearance of a cross and to be able to hang a man there with the arms opened...

 

further things to think about:

 

Numbers 21:8,9

 serpents from us.” And Moses interceded on behalf of the people.+ 8 Then Jehovah said to Moses: “Make a replica of a poisonous*snake and put it on

a pole. Then when anyone has been bitten, he will have to look at it in order to keep alive.” 9 Moses at once made a serpent of copper+ and put it on the pole,+ and whenever a serpent had bitten a man and he looked at the copper serpent, he survived.+[/]

John 3:14,15

 

 

14 And

just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness,+ so the Son of man must be lifted up,+ 15 so that everyone believing in him may have everlasting life.+

[carlos]

On 11/13/2018 at 10:11 PM, annakot said:

There are two things I came across, but they are not very convincing. One is the apparent depiction of Dionysus/Bacchus but I haven't been able to find out exact information about it only that it is supposed to be from 500 BCE. 

 

Thanks. I didn't know this piece. I found some detailed info here:

https://rogerviklund.wordpress.com/2011/05/07/oρφeoc-bakkikoc-del-8-–-a-brief-summary-in-english/

 

Very little is known about this representation. It appeared among an archeologist's objects after his death, was donated to a museum and disappeared during WW2. We only have that low quality picture of it. The Greek letters say Orpheus Bachiccus, but other than that there's no way to date it or even to make sure it's a genuine piece. Most sources doubt its authenticity, among other things because there is no ancient legend of either Bacchus nor Orpheus to have been crucified. In case it's genuine it's impossible to date it with any accuracy. Some scholars said it can be as late as from the 4th century CE.

 

So even if this piece is authentic it might prove that crosses were used for executions 300 years after Jesus.