Saturday, February 12, 2011

Jesus was executed on a cross, not a stake! #3. Linguistic

Continuing from part #2 Biblical with this part #3 of my new series "Jesus was executed on a cross, not a stake!".

[Right (click image to enlarge): WB&TS, 2003, "Learn from the Great Teacher," p.188.

Yet another un-Biblical (see part #2) Watchtower Bible & Tract Society illustration of Jesus on a single-beamed stake, with His hands above His head, affixed by one nail (not "nails" as in Jn 20:25 NWT) and with the charge against Him above His hands (not "above His head" as in Mt 27:37 NWT) !]

[1. Introduction; 2. Biblical; 3. Linguistic. 4. Historical; 5. Patristic. 6. Archaeological; 7. Pagan; 8. Worship; 9. Conclusion]

3. LINGUISTIC [See my Was Jesus executed on a cross or a stake? Linguistic #2A, #2B, #2C]

The Watchtower's linguistic argument to support its claim that Jesus was executed on a single-beamed stake, not a two-beamed cross, is as follows: 1) "The Greek word translated `cross' is stauros"; 2) "It basically means `an upright pale or stake'"; 3) Therefore "Jesus Christ did not die on a cross":

"... Jesus Christ did not die on a cross. The Greek word generally translated `cross' is stau-ros'. It basically means `an upright pale or stake.'" (WB&TS, 2005, "What Does the Bible Really Teach?" p.205).

But this argument is not only fallacious, it is dishonest. It is fallacious because the basic meaning of a word is not its only meaning. It can be readily granted that the basic meaning of stauros is "an upright pale or stake." Quite clearly the stauros as "an upright pale or stake" came first and then using it as part of an instrument of torture and execution came later.

"The Witnesses say stauros `primarily denotes an upright stake or pole.' ... They wish ... the reader to understand ... that it can mean only that. In fact, the word has a broader sense. It means cross as well as stake":

"Jehovah's Witnesses insist stauros can mean only stake. They conclude that, since the New Testament says Jesus died on a stauros, he did not die on a cross but on a single vertical beam, with his hands nailed together directly over his head. ... The Witnesses say stauros `primarily denotes an upright stake or pole.' ["Reasoning from the Scriptures," Watchtower Bible & Tract Society, Second edition, 1989, p.89] They wish to suggest (and the reader to understand) that it can mean only that. In fact, the word has a broader sense. It means cross as well as stake. If you pick up a dictionary and look up the word `square,' you find diverse senses of the word; the dictionary does not confine itself to a single Euclidean definition. (By the way, notice that the Witnesses refer to `classical Greek.' The New Testament was not written in classical Greek, but in Koine Greek, which has a sense of its own, just as American English has a sense of its own, distinct from that of British English--but the difference between the two Greeks is greater.)" (Bower, C.F., Jr., "Cross or Torture Stake?," This Rock, Vol. 2, No. 5, October 1991).

"To argue that ... stauros could be used only for that form [a simple upright stake with no crosspiece], is ... a naive restriction of the term to its original or simplest meaning":

"Cross or Stake? The Jehovah's Witnesses fail to point out that the Greek word stauros was used to refer to a variety of wooden structures used for execution in ancient days. Robert Bowman notes that stauros as a wooden structure could represent shapes `similar to the Greek letter tau (T) and the plus sign (+), occasionally using two diagonal beams (X), as well as (infrequently) a simple upright stake with no crosspiece. To argue that only the last-named form was used, or that stauros could be used only for that form, is contradictory to the actual historical facts and is based on a naive restriction of the term to its original or simplest meaning.' [Bowman, R.M., "Understanding Jehovah's Witnesses," Baker: Grand Rapids, 1991, p.143]" (Rhodes, R., 1993, "Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Jehovah's Witnesses," Harvest House: Eugene OR, p.396. Emphasis original).

The dishonest part of the Watchtower's linguistic argument is it must know, but fails to tell its followers, that all New Testament Greek lexicons give "cross" as a secondary (and one even the primary) meaning of stauros in the New Testament (my emphasis red):

"stauros ... 1. an upright pale or stake .... 2. In late writers ... of the Roman instrument of crucifixion, the Cross...." (Abbott-Smith, G., 1937, "A Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament," T & T. Clark, p.415. My transliteration).

"stauros ... the cross ... in the sense 'upright pointed stake' or `pale' ... the instrument by which the capital punishment of crucifixion was carried out ... a stake sunk into the earth in an upright position; a cross-piece was oft ... attached to its upper part, so that it was shaped like a T or thus ..." (Bauer, W., Arndt, W.F., Gingrich, F.W. & Danker, F.W., 1979, "A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament," University of Chicago Press, p.764. My transliteration).

"stauros ... upright pale or stake, ... II. cross, as the instrument of crucifixion ..." (Liddell, H.G., Scott, R. & Jones, H.S., 1883, "A Greek-English Lexicon," Clarendon Press, p.1635. My transliteration).

"stauros [cross] ...1. stauros is an upright `stake' such as is used in fences or palisades. 2. The stauros is an instrument of torture for serious offenses. It may be a vertical pointed stake, an upright with a cross-beam above it, or a post with an intersecting beam of equal length." (Kittel, G. & Friedrich, G., eds. , 1988, "Theological Dictionary of the New Testament: Abridged in one Volume," Eerdmans, p.1071. Word in square brackets original).

"stauros ... 1. an upright stake ... 2. a cross; a. the well-known instrument of most cruel and ignominious punishment ..." (Thayer, J.H., 1901, "A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament," T&T Clark, p.586. My transliteration).

"stauros ... A cross, a stake, often with a cross-piece, on which criminals were nailed for execution." (Zodhiates, S., 1992, "The Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament," AMG, pp.1308-1309).

Moreover, even by the Watchtower's own admission above, the word stauros does not mean "torture stake," but just "an upright pale or stake." So "There is no justification for inserting the word `torture', the Greek phrase used is simply `en stauros'":

"Paul showed that we should proudly boast about Jesus death on the cross. Its use is constant reminder of the importance of the ransom to our everlasting existence. Galatians 6:14 `Never may it occur that I should boast, except in the torture stake [cross] of our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom the world has been impaled [crucified] to me and I to the world.' [New World Translation. ... There is no justification for inserting the word `torture', the Greek phrase used is simply `en stauros']" (Grundy, P., 2008, "Cross or Stake," Facts About Jehovah's Witnesses, 18 February).

So (as we saw in my last post) the Watchtower is here guilty of inserting the word "torture" into Scripture, when it isn't there in the Greek, the 27 times that stauros appears in the New Testament. This is putting words into God's mouth, thus making God conform to Watchtower doctrine, not the other way around.

To be continued in part #4 Historical.

Stephen E. Jones.
My other blogs: CreationEvolutionDesign & The Shroud of Turin

5 comments:

peacelily said...

Good to see you tackling this topic, Stephen. Thank you!

The WTS also deceptively quotes the Imperial Bible Dictionary in their Reasoning book on page 89:

“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.”

They left out some critical information by their use of ellipses, and they also moved the period placement at the end forward. Fortunately, the Imperial Bible Dictionary is available to read or download online through Internet Archive, so people can read page 376 for themselves.

http://www.archive.org/details/theimperialbible01unknuoft

Justus Lipsius' book that the WTS borrowed an illustration from to support their stake argument in the NWT study edition (Appendix) and in the KIT can also be found online. The Catholic forum has a scanned pdf.

http://www.catholic-forum.com/members/popestleo/JustusLipsiusCruce.pdf

God bless!
peacelily

Ed-M said...

It looks like you left off on your cross vs. torture stake articles. And after a year plus I had to dig up your latest article in this series. Sorry for the delay!

I would have wanted to see your selection of patristic evidence: I found out that at least some of the Ante-Nicene Fathers thought Jesus was crucified on a five-pointed cross with the fifth point used to *ahem* "crucify" in a most perverted manner (as the extant Pozzuoli and Vivat Crux graffiti show).

BTW the so-called "crackpot theologian" Gunnar Samuelsson is 100% correct but his work was misrepresented by the sensationalist press (nothing new). He still believes Jesus was crucified on a cross but the NT verbiage cannot support it for some reason, unless the NT was the first time staur-ow was used to mean crucify and not impale on top of a pointed stake. And yes, I agree with you that Jesus was NOT impaled on such nor nailed to a simple post!

Stephen E. Jones said...

Ed-M

>It looks like you left off on your cross vs. torture stake articles.

Yes, but not necessarily permanently. But I have been focusing most of my blogging on my The Shroud of Turin blog.

>And after a year plus I had to dig up your latest article in this series. Sorry for the delay!

OK.

>I would have wanted to see your selection of patristic evidence: I found out that at least some of the Ante-Nicene Fathers thought Jesus was crucified on a five-pointed cross with the fifth point used to *ahem* "crucify" in a most perverted manner (as the extant Pozzuoli and Vivat Crux graffiti show).

Yes. Others used the analogy of a ship's mast with its cross-yards.

>BTW the so-called "crackpot theologian" Gunnar Samuelsson is 100% correct but his work was misrepresented by the sensationalist press (nothing new).

I disagree that he is "100% correct" in his reported claim that "Jesus did not die on [a] cross." He is 100% IN-correct"!

>He still believes Jesus was crucified on a cross but the NT verbiage cannot support it for some reason,

I disagree with the latter. The Gk. word stauros (like most words) is ambiguous. It can mean a single upright stake, or a two-beamed cross. But as I pointed out in my "Jesus was executed on a cross, not a stake! #2: Biblical," the New Testament makes it clear that Jesus was executed on a two-beamed cross and not a single beamed stake:

1. According to Mt 27:37 NWT, the charge against Jesus was posted "above his HEAD" not "above his HANDS" as it would be if Jesus was executed on a single upright stake.

2. According to Jn 20:25 NWT, Jesus had the "print of the NAILS" (plural) in His hands. Not ONE NAIL as the Watchtower has consistently depicted Jesus affixed to a single-beamed stake.

3. Jesus predicted the "sort of death" that Peter would die would be by him having to "stretch out" (Gk. ekteino) his hands (Jn 21:17-19 NWT). The Gk. word means stretch out sideways, not up.

4. Jesus could not have walked to Golgotha "bearing the torture stake for himself" (Jn 19:17 NWT).

Samuelsson's Ph.D dissertation committee should have failed him, for ignoring such clear evidence against his thesis.

>unless the NT was the first time staur-ow was used to mean crucify and not impale on top of a pointed stake.

It wasn't. There are plenty of examples in pre-NT history where stauros can only mean a two-beamed cross. See Leolaia, "The facts on crucifixion, stauros, and the `torture stake'," Jehovahs-Witness.Net, June 11, 2005.

>And yes, I agree with you that Jesus was NOT impaled on such nor nailed to a simple post!

Great!

Many modern `theologians' (so-called) like Samuelsson are mere careerists, working in theologial departments of secular universities (e.g. the "University of Gothenburg"), whose dominant philosophy is Naturalism ("nature is all there is-there is no supernatural"). They publish controversial works so that they get noticed and can be employed at such naturalistic theological departments.

They (including Samuelsson) will have to give account to Jesus (Mt 16:27; 2Cor 5:10; Acts 10:41-42; Rev 20:12, Rev 22:12) for such falsehoods they have written in the name of Christ and the support they have given to anti-Christian cults like the JWs.

Stephen E. Jones

Anonymous said...

For your information some biblical authors also used the word Xýlon which means "stick or wooden piece" and that's singular, so you can't assume that it was a "cross" since a cross consists of 2 wooden pieces

Stephen E. Jones said...

Anonymous

>For your information some biblical authors also used the word Xýlon which means "stick or wooden piece"

No. As I pointed out in my post, "Was Jesus executed on a cross or a stake? #2C: Linguistic", the New Testament Greek word "xylon", which primarily means "wood", can also mean "cross" (my emphasis bold below):

----------------------------------
And as per these quotes from leading New Testament Greek lexicons, xy'lon can also mean "cross" ...:

"xulon ... in NT, of the cross: Ac 5:30 10:39 13:29, Ga 3:13, 1 Pe 2:24 ... (Abbott-Smith, 1937 p.408).

"xulon ... gallows, in NT cross ... hang on the cross Ac 5: 30; 10:39 ... . take down fr. the cross (cf. Josh 10: 27) Ac 13: 29 ... bear the sins on (or to) the cross, to destroy them on the cross, 1 Pt 2: 24 ... " (Arndt & Gingrich, 1957, p.551)

"x'ylon [wood, cross, tree] ... 1. Wood ... . Thus x'ylon wood, cross, tree ... 4. The cross. A distinctive use of x'ylon in the NT is for the cross." (Kittel & Friedrich, 1988, pp.665-666).

"xulon ... in NT, of the cross, Act.Ap.5.30, 10.39 ... " (Liddell & Scott, 1883, pp.1191-1192).

"xulon ... that which is made of wood ... a gibbet, a cross, [A. V. tree ... Acts v. 30; x. 39; xiii. 29; Gal. iii. 13; 1 Pet. ii. 24 ... " (Thayer, 1901, p.432).

"xulon ... cross, equivalent to stauros ... (Acts 5:30; 10:39; 13:29; Gal. 3:13; 1 Pet. 2:24 ... " (Zodhiates, 1992, p.1023).
----------------------------------

>and that's singular, so you can't assume that it was a "cross" since a cross consists of 2 wooden pieces

And that's FALLACIOUS, since "cross" is singular too!

Stephen E. Jones
-------------------------------
Policies Those comments I consider off-topic, offensive or sub-standard will not appear. As this blog is now inactive (see "my last post to this blog"), I am not debating comments under posts on it. So each individual will be allowed only one comment under each post and any response by me will be only once to that individual under that post. Further comments under that post by that individual (or if anonymous who I assume is that individual) simply won't appear.