Shape of Jesus' Cross

Jayhawker Soule said:

This has all the explanatory power (and evidentiary force) as does noting that someone was crucified on a crucifix. The word used in Ezra is simply a term for wood; the rest is inferred by context.

Click to expand...

a piece of wood, not a cross

if I handed you a 'stake' or a piece of wood, or a tree trunk, it is not a cross.

wackybasith said:

I'm not sure of the exact names of the scholars but I've been reading about this on various sites and its clear that there are different interpretations and as Pegg mentioned it was a straight pole without a cross beam which is the belief of the JW if I'm not mistaken whereas a lot of other Christians believe in the cross with the cross beam



So according to the original Greek scriptures it is mentioned as an upright pole and not the cross with the cross beam? And what about the english version of the bible used today?

Click to expand...

the english word cross comes from the latin word 'crux'

but the latin word did not mean 'cross' as we know it. It was a translation of the Greek word 'stauros' which meant 'upright pole' or 'stake'


So much of the misrepresentation has to do with the english language and how it developed from latin. But it is quite easy to rectify if you know what the original words mean.

Jayhawker Soule said:

... quoting Ezra 6:11 for authority. But on who's authority are we to translate

אָע​

as "straight pole without a cross beam"?

Click to expand...

There are many scholars who have stated that an upright stake was the torture instrument.
The Latin dictionary by Lewis and Short says that crux was “a tree, frame, or other wooden instruments of execution, on which criminals were impaled or hanged.” In the writings of Livy, a Roman historian of the first century B.C.E., crux means a mere stake. “Cross” is only a later meaning of crux. A single stake for impalement of a criminal was called in Latin crux sim′plex. One such instrument of torture is illustrated by Justus Lipsius (1547-1606) in his book De cruce libri tres, Antwerp, 1629, p. 19.

There is the book Das Kreuz und die Kreuzigung (The Cross and the Crucifixion), by Hermann Fulda, Breslau, 1878, p. 109, says: “Trees were not everywhere available at the places chosen for public execution. So a simple beam was sunk into the ground. On this the outlaws, with hands raised upward and often also with their feet, were bound or nailed....Jesus died on a simple death-stake: In support of this there speak (a) the then customary usage of this means of execution in the Orient, (b) indirectly the history itself of Jesus’ sufferings and (c) many expressions of the early church fathers.” P219-220

Another is Paul Wilhelm Schmidt, a professor at the University of Basel, in his work Die Geschichte Jesu (The History of Jesus), Vol. 2, Tübingen and Leipzig, 1904, pp. 386-394, made a detailed study of the Greek word stau‧ros′. On p. 386 he said: “σταυρός [stau‧ros′] means every upright standing pale or tree trunk.”


And if you look at the full scripture in Ezra, it is not saying to make a crossbeam, it simply states:
Ezra 6:11 "And by me an order has been put through that, as for anybody that violates this decree, a timber will be pulled out of his house and he will be impaled upon it, and his house will be turned into a public privy on this account.
In this verse, timber is a piece of wood.
Impaled on a timber. That piece of timber is singular...its one stake of timber.

fallingblood said:

None that wrote about the event. There were the Romans who crucified Jesus. The would have been present, but wouldn't have wasted time writing about it as Jesus was just one more Jew that they crucified. There may have been other condemned criminals who were also crucified with Jesus, but they obviously would not have wrote anything. And then there may have been a couple of people who passed by (probably not many if any since we are talking about it being Passover, and most Jews who were coming to Jerusalem for the event would have been there for about a week already) and they wouldn't have paid too much attention as they would have most likely been familiar with the sight.


So no, there were no one witnessing this that reported it. There were some witnesses, as explained above (at the very least, the people who crucified him), but they wouldn't have cared enough to write anything about it as it was just one more Jew that was being crucified.

We have no eyewitness accounts to this event. There is not a single one that we know of.

As for the difference in the cross shape, that really is not a major problem. The vast majority see the cross as it historically would have been, in the shape of a T.

Click to expand...

Well i dont want to contradict you here, but the scriptures certainly testify that witnesses were present.

the Apostle Johns account shows that he himself was standing by Jesus when he died. Jesus mother were there and some of his relatives and even a member of the Sanhedrin were there, Nicodemus...and Joseph of Arimathea.

John 19:25 By the torture stake of Jesus, however, there were standing his mother and the sister of his mother; Mary the wife of Clo′pas, and Mary Mag′da‧lene. 26 Therefore Jesus, seeing his mother and the disciple whom he loved (the Apostle John) standing by, said to his mother: “Woman, see! Your son!” 27 Next he said to the disciple: “See! Your mother!” And from that hour on the disciple took her to his own home.
28 After this, when Jesus knew that by now all things had been accomplished, in order that the scripture might be accomplished he said: “I am thirsty.” 29 A vessel was sitting there full of sour wine. Therefore they put a sponge full of the sour wine upon a hyssop [stalk] and brought it to his mouth. 30 When, now, he had received the sour wine, Jesus said: “It has been accomplished!” and, bowing his head, he delivered up [his] spirit....
38 Now after these things Joseph from Ar‧i‧ma‧the′a, who was a disciple of Jesus but a secret one out of [his] fear of the Jews, requested Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus; and Pilate gave him permission. Therefore he came and took his body away. 39 Nic‧o‧de′mus also, the man that came to him in the night the first time, came bringing a roll of myrrh and aloes, about a hundred pounds [of it]. 40 So they took the body of Jesus and bound it up with bandages with the spices


As this was Johns own gospel, he was there at Jesus death, and he was an eyewitness along with many others.

Pegg said:

the english word cross comes from the latin word 'crux'

but the latin word did not mean 'cross' as we know it. It was a translation of the Greek word 'stauros' which meant 'upright pole' or 'stake'


So much of the misrepresentation has to do with the english language and how it developed from latin. But it is quite easy to rectify if you know what the original words mean.

Click to expand...

Except most new translations are from the Greek, not the Latin. So this really is a moot point.

Pegg said:

There are many scholars who have stated that an upright stake was the torture instrument.
The Latin dictionary by Lewis and Short says that crux was “a tree, frame, or other wooden instruments of execution, on which criminals were impaled or hanged.” In the writings of Livy, a Roman historian of the first century B.C.E., crux means a mere stake. “Cross” is only a later meaning of crux. A single stake for impalement of a criminal was called in Latin crux sim′plex. One such instrument of torture is illustrated by Justus Lipsius (1547-1606) in his book De cruce libri tres, Antwerp, 1629, p. 19.

There is the book Das Kreuz und die Kreuzigung (The Cross and the Crucifixion), by Hermann Fulda, Breslau, 1878, p. 109, says: “Trees were not everywhere available at the places chosen for public execution. So a simple beam was sunk into the ground. On this the outlaws, with hands raised upward and often also with their feet, were bound or nailed....Jesus died on a simple death-stake: In support of this there speak (a) the then customary usage of this means of execution in the Orient, (b) indirectly the history itself of Jesus’ sufferings and (c) many expressions of the early church fathers.” P219-220

Another is Paul Wilhelm Schmidt, a professor at the University of Basel, in his work Die Geschichte Jesu (The History of Jesus), Vol. 2, Tübingen and Leipzig, 1904, pp. 386-394, made a detailed study of the Greek word stau‧ros′. On p. 386 he said: “σταυρός [stau‧ros′] means every upright standing pale or tree trunk.”


And if you look at the full scripture in Ezra, it is not saying to make a crossbeam, it simply states:
Ezra 6:11 "And by me an order has been put through that, as for anybody that violates this decree, a timber will be pulled out of his house and he will be impaled upon it, and his house will be turned into a public privy on this account.
In this verse, timber is a piece of wood.
Impaled on a timber. That piece of timber is singular...its one stake of timber.

Click to expand...

Do you notice that all of your sources are highly dated? A hundred year old source is out dated. Especially if the general consensus disagrees with the position put forward, and that position has been basically abandoned.

As for Ezra, completely different time and place. During different time periods, people were executed in different ways. In different areas, people were executed in different ways. Ezra was not talking about the Roman form of crucifixion. Ezra isn't even talking about that time period in which one would have been crucified in the Roman fashion. So really, that is a completely moot point.

As for the Latin dictionary, again, it really isn't relevant here. We are talking about Greek. Modern versions of the NT are translated from the Greek, so the Latin really isn't relevant here.
More so, the Lewis and Short Dictionary is highly outdated, and for the most part, superseded by the Oxford Latin Dictionary.

As for your other sources, they are extremely outdated. They were written long before we discovered thousands of manuscripts at Oxyrhyncus in Egypt, which helped revolutionize the way scholars see New Testament Greek. There is a reason why the position you are stating has been dropped by modern scholars.

Pegg said:

Well i dont want to contradict you here, but the scriptures certainly testify that witnesses were present.

the Apostle Johns account shows that he himself was standing by Jesus when he died. Jesus mother were there and some of his relatives and even a member of the Sanhedrin were there, Nicodemus...and Joseph of Arimathea.


As this was Johns own gospel, he was there at Jesus death, and he was an eyewitness along with many others.

Click to expand...

You are relying on a tradition that equates the loved disciple and John. There simply is no reason to believe that tradition as it is not supported anywhere in scripture. More so, it means there is a contradiction in the Gospels. The Gospels also state that all of the disciples fled when Jesus was arrested. John can not have fled, and still have been there. Either he fled, or he didn't. You can't have it both ways.

More so, the other Gospels disagree with John. Another contradiction. They don't mention those other stories. They state that Jesus died alone.

There are just too many problems with the Gospel accounts to think that they are historically accurate.

fallingblood said:

Except most new translations are from the Greek, not the Latin. So this really is a moot point.

Click to expand...

its not a moot point at all

It should be asked of translators why they are translating a word that means 'pole' or 'stake' (stauros) into a word that means cross.

I think their bias is leading them. Personally, i'd much rather know exactly what was said by the apostles. The worship of God must be based on truth...not fancy traditions.

Pegg said:

Well i dont want to contradict you here, but the scriptures certainly testify that witnesses were present.

Click to expand...

So then who are "all the disciples" being referred to in Matthew 26:56?

Pegg said:

its not a moot point at all

It should be asked of translators why they are translating a word that means 'pole' or 'stake' (stauros) into a word that means cross.

I think their bias is leading them. Personally, i'd much rather know exactly what was said by the apostles. The worship of God must be based on truth...not fancy traditions.

Click to expand...

They weren't translating a word that meant pole or stake into a word that means cross. They were translating a word that means cross into a word that means cross. As I explained before, when we see stauros used by ancient sources that used koine Greek, when they do explain the shape, the represent it with a T. For example, the Epistle of Barnabas.

More so, there is no reason to think that Jesus was crucified in a manner in which the Romans simply didn't crucify people. The evidence consistently points to the fact that the Romans crucified people on a cross, not a stake or pole.

Both textual and archeological evidence points to Jesus being crucified on a cross. Our earliest depictions of crucifixion are that on a cross. There is no reason to assume that it wasn't.

Pegg said:

There are many scholars who have stated that an upright stake was the torture instrument.

Click to expand...

That may be. There were many torture devices in the ancient world.

But truly, only a "scholar" would be lying through their teeth if they said that Jesus was crucified on a pole. It's beyond bad scholarship, because the evidence for Roman crucifixion and what the Bible says is irrefutable. There is no debate. None. Nada. Zippo.

The gibbet on which crucifixion was carried out could be of many shapes. Josephus describes multiple tortures and positions of crucifixion during the Siege of Jerusalem as Titus crucified the rebels; and Seneca the Younger recounts: "I see crosses there, not just of one kind but made in many different ways: some have their victims with head down to the ground; some impale their private parts; others stretch out their arms on the gibbet." [Wiki]

Click to expand...

It's a silly discussion.

angellous_evangellous said:

That may be. There were many torture devices in the ancient world.

But truly, only a "scholar" would be lying through their teeth if they said that Jesus was crucified on a pole. It's beyond bad scholarship, because the evidence for Roman crucifixion and what the Bible says is irrefutable. There is no debate. None. Nada. Zippo.

Click to expand...

except you are forgetting one thing

When the romans were dealing with Jews, they took the Jews customs into consideration and governed them with those same customs.

that is why Pilate said to the mob of religious leaders who wanted Jesus dead "You have a custom that one prisoner can go free in exchange for another" He then allowed them to make the choice to release Jesus or Barabas.

In the case of execution, the Jews custom was as is written in the Hebrew scriptures. The criminal was staked on a piece of wood according to Deut 21:22 “And in case there comes to be in a man a sin deserving the sentence of death, and he has been put to death, and you have hung him upon a stake, 23 his dead body should not stay all night on the stake; but you should by all means bury him on that day,

You may recall in the account that prominent Jews asked Pilate for Jesus body to be taken down before sunset in keeping with the religious custom.

Pegg said:

except you are forgetting one thing

When the romans were dealing with Jews, they took the Jews customs into consideration and governed them with those same customs.

Click to expand...

No they didn't. There are a number of stories in which the Romans did things in which the Jews would have found despicable. Pilate was notorious for doing this. If the Romans really cared about the customs of the Jews, they definitely wouldn't have crucified a Jew on Passover, an important Jewish holiday.

Even considering the scourging, Roman customs prevailed. There are instances in which we see people being beaten to death. And then there is the matter of crucifixion itself, which was not part of the Jewish custom. The Jews had a form of execution, and it was not crucifixion. So no, the Romans did not submit to the Jewish customs.

that is why Pilate said to the mob of religious leaders who wanted Jesus dead "You have a custom that one prisoner can go free in exchange for another" He then allowed them to make the choice to release Jesus or Barabas.

Click to expand...

There is no such custom. There is no record, outside of the Gospels, that relates such a custom. If it was truly a yearly thing, there is no evidence it ever happened. There is no mention of it anywhere, besides the Gospels. More so, it would have been foolish for the Romans to do anyway. In a time that they are trying to support peace, they wouldn't release known criminals, especially violent ones. That would simply be ridiculous.

In the case of execution, the Jews custom was as is written in the Hebrew scriptures. The criminal was staked on a piece of wood according to Deut 21:22 “And in case there comes to be in a man a sin deserving the sentence of death, and he has been put to death, and you have hung him upon a stake, 23 his dead body should not stay all night on the stake; but you should by all means bury him on that day,

You may recall in the account that prominent Jews asked Pilate for Jesus body to be taken down before sunset in keeping with the religious custom.

Click to expand...

Actually, the reason they supposedly took the body of Jesus down was because the of the Sabbath. That is the reason why it is stated that the body of Jesus had to be taken off the cross. However, we know from historical sources, the Romans did not always follow this anyway.

More so, you are grossly misinterpreting the text. The text doesn't have something to do with crucifixion. It has to do with a dead body being hung from a tree. That is, someone who has already been sentenced to death, and executed (remember, the verse you quoted says nothing as to the means in which the person is executed, only what happens afterwards) and then hung on a tree (which was a sign of dishonor), he should not be kept on such all night. There is a huge difference here.

More so, it doesn't state the person is staked onto a piece of wood. It states that he is hung from a tree. There is a difference there as well.

Pegg said:

except you are forgetting one thing

When the romans were dealing with Jews, they took the Jews customs into consideration and governed them with those same customs.

that is why Pilate said to the mob of religious leaders who wanted Jesus dead "You have a custom that one prisoner can go free in exchange for another" He then allowed them to make the choice to release Jesus or Barabas.

In the case of execution, the Jews custom was as is written in the Hebrew scriptures. The criminal was staked on a piece of wood according to Deut 21:22 “And in case there comes to be in a man a sin deserving the sentence of death, and he has been put to death, and you have hung him upon a stake, 23 his dead body should not stay all night on the stake; but you should by all means bury him on that day,

You may recall in the account that prominent Jews asked Pilate for Jesus body to be taken down before sunset in keeping with the religious custom.

Click to expand...

Except the Jews didn't crucify people, at least not before the Romans came on the scene. Jews preferred stoning.

In other words, with the Romans, there was no Jewish custom to follow regarding crucifixion. The Romans used crucifixion to punish their non-citizens and conquered peoples - it was a sign of humiliation that Romans did not have to endure. And it was done on a pole with a cross-beam so that dying would take as long as possible.

Wouldn't it be a Three-bared Cross? We know he had the sign nailed above his head (INRI), so It would be the contemorary cross with a bar above the horizontal bar.

IsaacAndIshmael said:

Wouldn't it be a Three-bared Cross? We know he had the sign nailed above his head (INRI), so It would be the contemorary cross with a bar above the horizontal bar.

Click to expand...

Not quite. From what we know, crosses were in the shape of an upper letter T. If a sign was nailed above their head, then the cross would end up being a lower letter t.

As for the sign above his head, that is debatable.

fallingblood said:

Not quite. From what we know, crosses were in the shape of an upper letter T. If a sign was nailed above their head, then the cross would end up being a lower letter t.

As for the sign above his head, that is debatable.

Click to expand...

Then it would be the regular cross? I was Imagining the Archbishop cross.

IsaacAndIshmael said:

Then it would be the regular cross? I was Imagining the Archbishop cross.

Click to expand...

Most likely, yes. Crosses, from what I have gathered, were either in the shape of a T or t. I guess there would be a possibility of a third bar, but it would have just been easier to attach such a sign to the top of the cross beam. The reason being that the vertical beam was usually stuck in the ground almost permanently. The reason being that it was easier for them to just keep the vertical beam there since they did crucify so many. They would then hoist the crossbeam into place. So attaching a sign to the top of the cross beam would have been easiest.

wackybasith said:

Many biblical scholars have given different interpretations as to the shape of the cross Jesus was put on. Isn't there a record by any of the witnesses as to the actual shape of the cross? According to a video I watched earlier of a christian speaker, he said the Quran has no proof or evidence that Jesus was not crucified and the Bible has evidence as there were many witnesses present to observe this event. In this case wouldn't some of these witnesses note the actual shape of the cross Jesus was put on. Can someone elaborate on this?

Click to expand...

Jesus was the Lamb of God being slain, and the account in Barnabas depicts the symbolism that as a lamp was placed on a post and carried on crossbeam to it's sacrifice, so was Christ.

I do remember reading lately that the excavated sites of Roman execution sites confirmed that it was the typical mode, though not necessarily the only one.