mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate) (04/01/91)
The season and a tract brought up a question: Why the JW insistence on "torture stake" instead of "cross"?
cattanac@cs.uiuc.edu (Scott Cattanach) (04/03/91)
mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate) writes: >The season and a tract brought up a question: >Why the JW insistence on "torture stake" instead of "cross"? Dunno, but a Jewish-Christian (for those of you who consider this an oxymoron, sorry, I just needed a term to describe who did the translation) NT translation I have uses "execution stake" instead of "cross" and claims to have taken out anti-Jewish bias in the translation. Haven't a clue what is anti-Jewish about "cross" since it was a Roman execution style. -- -catt (Scott Cattanach - catt@uiuc.edu) "I have come to the conclusion that one useless man is called a disgrace, that two become a law firm, and that three or more become a congress."
stevep@uunet.uu.net (Steve Peterson) (04/05/91)
In article <Apr.1.05.00.07.1991.8544@athos.rutgers.edu> mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate) writes: >The season and a tract brought up a question: > >Why the JW insistence on "torture stake" instead of "cross"? Hi Charlie! This is a good question that you have asked. In the early days of the Watch Tower Magazine, the front cover display the Cross and throughout the pages of our Literature you would find many references to the Cross. Why has this changed? This is simply because further research on the issue has lead us to the conclusion that Jesus didn't die on a two-beamed, cross like instrument. The Greek word rendered "cross" in many modern Bible translations is "stauros". In classical Greek, this word meant merely an upright stake, or pale. Later it also came to be used for an execution stake having a cross piece. Here is a sampling from Non-JW sources: "The Greek word for cross, [stauros], properly signified a stake, an upright pole, or piece of paling, on which anything might be hung, or which might be used in impaling [fencing in] a piece of ground....Even amongst the Romans the 'crux' (from which our cross is derived) appears to have been originally an upright pole." The Emperial Bible-Dictionary, Vol. I, p. 376 "There is not a single sentence in any of the numerous writings forming the New Testament, which, in the original Greek, bears even indirect evidence to the effect that the stauros used in the case of Jesus was other than an ordinary stauros; much less to the effect that it consisted, no of one piece of timber, but of two pieces nailed together in the form of a cross... it is not a little misleading upon the part of our teachers to translate the word stauros as 'cross' when rendering the Greek documents of the Church into our native tongue, and to support that action by putting 'cross' in our lexicons as the meaning of stauros without carefully explaining that that was at any rate not the primary meaning of the word in the days of the Apostles, did not become its primary signification till long afterwards, and became so then, if at all, only because, despite the absence of corroborative evidence, it was for some reason or other assumed that the particular stauros upon which Jesus was executed had that particular shape." The Non-Christian Cross, by John Denham Parsons pp. 23, 24 "The shape of the [two-beamed cross] had its origin in ancient Chaldea, and was used as the symbol of the god Tammuz (being in the shape of the mystic Tau, the initial of his name) in that country and in adjacent lands, including Egypt. By the middle of the 3rd cent. A.D. the churches had either departed from, or had travestied, certain doctrines of the Christian faith. In order to increase the prestige of the apostate ecclesiastical system pagans were received into the churches apart from regeneration by faith, and were permitted largely to retain their pagan signs and symbols. Hence the Tau or T, in its most frequent form, with the cross-piece lowered, was adopted to stand for the cross of Christ." An Expository Dictionar of New Testament Words, W. E. Vine, p. 256 Thus, Jehovah's Witnesses understand that the evidence indicates that Jesus didn't really die on a two-beamed cross. But, independant of what exact instrument was used to put him to death, what should be the attitude of Christians toward it? Should we venerate it? Worship it? Bow our heads before it? Wear it around our necks? 1 Cor 10:14 "....flee from idolatry." (An idol is an image or symbol that is an object of intense devotion, veneration, or worship) Ex 20:4, 5 "... don't make yourself a carved image.... you shall not bow down to them." Does it really make any difference if a person cherishes a cross, as long as he does not worship it? How would you feel if one of your dearest friends was executed on the basis of false charges? Would you make a replica of the instrument of execution? Would you cherish it? If the instrument that was used to kill Jesus was a knife, or a gun(well, yes, it wasn't invented yet), or a vial of poison, etc., could you imagine everyone running around with little replicas of these hanging around their necks? Hopefully, this has provided some insight into why JW's use the word torture stake instead of cross in translating the word stauros. With love, Steve Peterson stevep@cadence.com [My sources agree that the original meaning of stauros was simply stake. Clearly however the JW's agree that in its NT usage, the word has taken on a technical meaning, signifying specifically the Roman execution instrument, or they wouldn't translate it "torture stake". To use the term "stake" in English would I think imply to most people a single vertical post. However Steve says he has in mind a stake with a cross-piece. It's unclear to me what the difference is between a two-beamed cross and a stake with a cross-piece. Perhaps what he has in mind is what is normally called a "tau cross", i.e. a cross in which the vertical part does not extend above the horizontal part. Christians has used many different forms of cross as a symbol, including the tau. But I suspect the reason people tend to assume a full tee is Mat 27:37, which implies that the charge was nailed to a portion of the cross extending above Jesus' head. At any rate, even if we're talking about a stake with a cross piece, it is a matter of judgement as to whether "torture stake" or "cross" is a better description of such an object. As to use of the cross as a Christian symbol, this is the sort of paradox that seems fairly common in Christianity. We boldly proclaim what seems folly to the world. It's the sort of paradox that (whatever the actual history of the term) leads us to call the day of Christ's execution "good Friday". Paul clearly uses the cross as a symbol of Christ's action for us. He talks about the word of the cross having power (I Cor 1:17-18), Christians being persecuted for the cross (Gal 6:12), and glorying in the cross (Gal 6:14). I take it JW's do not glory in the cross. --clh]
grossg@patriot.rtp.dg.com (Gene Gross) (04/05/91)
In article <Apr.3.02.56.28.1991.10416@athos.rutgers.edu> cattanac@cs.uiuc.edu (Scott Cattanach) writes: >mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate) writes: > >>The season and a tract brought up a question: > >>Why the JW insistence on "torture stake" instead of "cross"? > >Dunno, but a Jewish-Christian (for those of you who consider this >an oxymoron, sorry, I just needed a term to describe who did the translation) >NT translation I have uses "execution stake" instead of "cross" and claims >to have taken out anti-Jewish bias in the translation. Haven't a clue >what is anti-Jewish about "cross" since it was a Roman execution style. This may have a lot to do with the fact that one of the forms of the crosses used involved a stake stuck in the ground more or less permanently. The top of the stake was sharpened to a point (rather like a pencil with a blunt point). The crossbar carried by the victim had a corresponding cup hollowed out in the center. At the time of crucifixion, after the victim was nailed to the crossbar, the victim and crossbar were pulled up to the top of the stake and dropped into place on the point of the stake. This method was the one most often used because it was easy to set up and take down. En Theos, Gene
stevep@uunet.uu.net (Steve Peterson) (04/08/91)
>[My sources agree that the original meaning of stauros was simply >stake. Clearly however the JW's agree that in its NT usage, the word >has taken on a technical meaning, signifying specifically the Roman >execution instrument, or they wouldn't translate it "torture stake". >To use the term "stake" in English would I think imply to most people >a single vertical post. However Steve says he has in mind a stake >with a cross-piece. It's unclear to me what the difference is between >a two-beamed cross and a stake with a cross-piece. Sorry if I introduced some confusion here. It is our understanding that Jesus died on a simple vertical stake, his arms/hands being nailed straight up above his head...... Steve Peterson stevep@cadence.com
tblake@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Thomas Blake) (04/14/91)
In article <Apr.7.22.12.41.1991.28835@athos.rutgers.edu> cadence!stevep@uunet.uu.net (Steve Peterson) writes: >Sorry if I introduced some confusion here. It is our understanding that Jesus >died on a simple vertical stake, his arms/hands being nailed straight up above >his head...... Once again, I must ask, what difference does it make? We agree that Jesus was crucified for our sake. If he was nailed to an upright post does this in any way detract from the meaning of his death for us? It's no news that a crucifix is not accurate. An accurate crucifix with great gouts of blood would be considered by most to be in bad taste. There is evidence for both for a "torture stake" and for a "cross". The cross has the weight of tradition on it's side. The important thing is not the shape of the cross, or where the nails pierced Jesus' body. The important things are the meaning of the crucifixion, and our reaction to it. Other matters serve only to distract us. Tom Blake SUNY-Binghamton
stevep@uunet.uu.net (Steve Peterson) (04/17/91)
In article <Apr.13.23.27.00.1991.12261@athos.rutgers.edu> tblake@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Thomas Blake) writes: >In article <Apr.7.22.12.41.1991.28835@athos.rutgers.edu> cadence!stevep@uunet.uu.net (Steve Peterson) writes: >>Sorry if I introduced some confusion here. It is our understanding that Jesus >>died on a simple vertical stake, his arms/hands being nailed straight up above >>his head...... > >Once again, I must ask, what difference does it make? You are sure right that the important thing is the value of Jesus ransom sacrifice, not the shape of the instrument. In the case of this thread, the question was "Why do Jehovah's Witnesses use the term 'torture stake' instead of 'cross'?" What I tried to point out was that there is evidence that shows that the idea of a "cross" shaped device was added after the fact and came in to the Christian church from non-Christian religions. Steve