Talk:Instrument of Jesus' crucifixion/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Untitlede

I've added a couple of links for some balance. This article needs major work to reduce the POV. It also needs citations. Dtbrown 20:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses Series

I have added the series box for Jehovah's Witnesses to this article. Does anyone disagree?--Abbott75 01:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I added a link to a direct article on the subject. I don't know if this is allowed because of copyrights. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.194.147.98 (talk) 03:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

New content

A bunch of new text, giving detailed arguments on the cross/stake issue, has been transplanted from the Christian cross article, and the name of this page has been changed from Torture stake to Cross or stake as gibbet on which Jesus died. Much previous discussion regarding this same body of text can be found at Talk:Christian cross. --BlueMoonlet 13:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The article has now been thoroughtly revised on the basis of the corresponding article in the Greek Wikipedia, Σταυρός του Ιησού Χριστού, which in turn is based on sources such as Εκτενής έρευνα για το σχήμα του Σταυρoύ. The revised text of the English article consists essentially of a collection of sources, with at most a drawing of attention to part of the content. Wikipedia rules about quoting such sources say that "anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source" (WP:NOR). Lima 13:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear Friend Lima,

The article of the Greek Wikipedia has been reduced to 20% of its original size, because recenlty many pseudo-scientifical fallacies were exposed as a result of an amateurish and biased original research of its main editor. The English article also needs more information and sound bibliographical support. We will try to do our best as long as we have available time.

P.S.: The same editor made the arcticle of the other web-page also.

--Vassilis78 (talk) 10:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Αγαπητέ Κύριε Βασίλη, I fear that the article in English, originally an abbreviation of the Greek one, is now rapidly growing longer, because of the repeated insertion of statements taken out of context so as to make it appear that the writers said quite the opposite of what they actually said. These insertions are indeed highly curious, and certainly not scholarly.

Take the following, which was presented as evidence in favour of the stake hypothesis: "The forms in which the cross is represented are these: 1. The crux simplex (I), a "single piece without transom."" (Easton's Bible Dictionary, "Cross").

What that source actually said was: "The forms in which the cross is represented are these:

1. The crux simplex (I), a 'single piece without transom'.

2. The crux decussata (X), or St. Andrew's cross.

3. The crux commissa (T), or St. Anthony's cross.

4. The crux immissa (†), or Latin cross, which was the kind of cross on which our Saviour died. Above our Lord's head, on the projecting beam, was placed the 'title'"!

Why not return the article to how it was before these insertions began to appear? Is it not possible merely to state the different views on the subject, without entering into reasons for and against the views? I don't think it is at all useful to quote Writers A, B, C as believing X and Writers M, N, O as believing Y. Is it not enough to say, without having to quote them at such length, without indeed having to quote their words at all, that they disagree on the matter? Lima (talk) 15:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

One thing I've noted is missing is that there only one verifiable example of cruxifiction in all of archealogy, and that it does not hint at how cruxifiction was carried out or the shape of the gibbet. -Fcsuper (talk) 17:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The source that the article quotes about this archaeological discovery presents this crucifixion as not having been carried out on a single stake. Another source indicates three possible positions of the man on the gibbet, all requiring a crossbar. An article in the Expository Times thought that only one of the three forms (all with crossbeam) was actually used. Lima (talk) 18:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Lima, those are anecdotal in nature. I am talking about physical evidence (near-lack thereof, actually). This comment didn't address my comment. --Fcsuper (talk) 17:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The conclusions that the three studies drew from the evidence are shown in the drawings they included. The authors would object to your qualification of their studies as merely anecdotal. Lima (talk) 18:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I doubt so, actually. The drawings are merely depictions, and none are contemperary to the event in question here. Really, they are no better than someone saying "Yeah, they did that back in the day." Sure, there is some validity to using such evidence, but given the grand scale of cruxifictions that supposedly took place, there is almost no physical evidence at all. In that sense, it is equal to taking someone's word for it. I'm not even just talking Christ's gibbet, but all executions by such means.--Fcsuper (talk) 01:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The drawings are merely depictions of how the authors think one particular man was crucified. They do not claim to or aim to show how all the many crucifixions back in that day were carried out. They depict only how one man was crucified, the man whose remains are the only archaeological evidence of an actual first-century crucifixion in Palestine. This one case does not prove that no other form of crucifixion was used then and there: it only proves that crucifixion on a cross was in use. There is literary evidence that other forms of crucifixion (for instance, on a stake or a live tree) were used. But there is no archaeological evidence for the existence of those other forms. Since the only archaeological evidence that exists merely shows that crucifixion on a cross was not unknown in first-century Palestine, the article mentions archaeology only briefly and only at the end. Agreed? Lima (talk) 04:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

In principle yes, but the article reaches too far. The evidence it is talking about is just a disembodied wrist with a wooden post thrust through it. The way the quote reads, the researcher determined the full shape of the gibbet and how the body was posted to it as though the whole body was found. The actual item only suggests a piece of wood was driven through a single hand. It can be debated as to whether it is even an example of cruxification. The article states as fact something that is unverifiable from the evidence it references. I would suggest we need a better source for this discussion. --Fcsuper (talk) 04:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Good. The article does not state as a fact that the man was crucified or that he was crucified in a particular way. It only states the undisputed fact that an expert of the Hebrew University says he was. You are free to quote some expert who says what you say here. But you need more than your personal opinion to make such an addition to a Wikipedia article (WP:NOR). Lima (talk) 08:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The T-shape

I would like to hear some discussions about those claiming that the gibbet of Jesus was shaped like a T. I think that should be clearly mentioned in the article.Summer Song 16:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The article does clearly mention four early sources that expressly compare it to the shape of the letter T (this letter is called tau in Greek): the Epistle of Barnabas (c. 100), Origen (c. 185–c. 254), Tertullian (c. 155–230) and Clement of Alexandria (c.150-211/216). Tertullian seems to have considered the T shape and the † shape as equivalent, and the difference between the two shapes as unimportant, being only a matter of exactly where the crossbeam was placed. The others may have had the same attitude. Lima 18:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

PVasiliadis

The dictionary of modern Greek in my possession is that of ΓΕΩΡΓΙΟΣ Δ. ΜΗΑΜΠΙΝΙΩΤΗΣ (Κέντρο Λεξικολογίας Ε.Π.Ε., Αθήνα 2004. It says: σταυρός - 1.- ΕΚΚΛΗΣ. (α) το σύμπλεγμα δύο δοκών, που τέμνονται κάθετα, πάνω στο οποίο σταυρώθηκε και θανατώθηκε ο Χριστός• συνέκδ. κάθε αντικείμενο τέτοιου σχήματος, το οποίο συμβολίζει τη σταυρική θυσία του: Τίμιος Σταυρός || φοράει χρυσό / ασημένιο ~ (β) (συνεκδ.) το σημείο του σταυρού ως λατρευτική κίνηση: κάνω τον ~ μου• ΦΡ. (α) με τον σταυρό στο χέρι - με τρόπο έντιμο, ηθικό (β) φιλώ σταυρό - ορκίζομαι (γ) σηκώνω / αίρω τον σταυρό του μαρτυρίου - (βλ. λ. μαρτύριο 2.- (α) σχήμα που αποτελείται από δύο τεμνόμενες κάθετες γραμμές που σχηματίζουν τέσσερις ορθές γωνίες: αντί για υπογραφή έβαλε έναν ~ (επειδή ηταν αγράμματος) • ΦΡ. σταυρός προτίμησης - το σημάδι του σταυρού που σημειώνει ο ψηφοφόρος δίπλα στο όνομα του υποψηφίου που προτιμά (β) (συνεκδ.) σταυροειδές σχήμα με διαφορετική κατά περίπτωση διάταξη των κεραιών του: ελληνικός ~ (με τέσσερις ίσες κεραίες) / λατινικός ~ (με την κάτω κεραία μακρύτερη) || ~ του Αγίου Ανδρέα (σε σχήμα Χ) • ΦΡ. Ερυθρός Σταυρός - βλ. λ. 3.- (μτφ.) τα βάσανα που υποφέρει κανείς στη ζωή του: σηκώνει μεγάλο ~ 4.- εκδοτικό σύμβολο που (α) δείχνει εφθαρμένο (†...†) τμήμα εκδιδομένου κειμένου (β) τίθεται μπροστά από την ημερομηνία θανάτου κάποιου, π.χ. Κωστής Παλαμάς (†1943) 5.- ΑΣΤΡΟΝ. (α) Βόρειος σταυρός - ο αστερισμός του Κύκνου (β) Νότιος σταυρός / σταυρός του Νότου - βλ. λ. νότιος

In all this there is no hint that the word "σταυρός" nowadays ever means "stake", whether as its primary or as a secondary meaning, in spite of the claim by PVasiliadis that "even in modern Greek lexicons 'stavros' primarily means stake". However, rather than discuss further so small a matter, I will use the present tense, "mean", instead of the past tense, "meant", when speaking of the "stake" meaning of the word "σταυρός".

However I must very strongly object to PVasiliadis's truncating the text of Easton's Bible Dictionary to make it seem to say that the cross of Jesus was a stake, when it quite explicitly states the opposite. The rest of what the Dictionary says is by no means irrelevant. On the contrary, it is highly relevant, not only in that it avoids falsifying what the Dictionary says, but also because the context is precisely about "the forms in which the cross is represented", which the Dictionary clearly states were not one, as PVasiliadis makes it say, but four, adding that the cross of Jesus was not in the one form that PVasiliadis wishes to allow. I presume good faith on the part of PVasiliadis, but I quite fail to understand the logic of his action. Perhaps he will be good enough to explain.

Would he also explain why he keeps removing the sourced statements that, by the end of the B.C. period, "σταυρός" was being used to mean a cross. Let him, by all means, quote sources that hold a different view, but he has no right to censor out sources that disagree with his POV. Let him also ask for a citation about any statement that he thinks is ill-founded; if no citation is produced, then he may suppress it.

And when I ask for a citation to back up his statements, would be please provide the citation, instead of removing the tag. Lima (talk) 20:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear friend, we could discuss for a long time this subject. Specialists have a wide range of different opinions so it would not reasonable to believe that we will give the solutions. Just some brief points:

• The word σταυρός is clear what it means in Greek. The interesting point is the change of the meaning by the Ecclesiastical use.

"The New Testament word 'cross' is an incorrect translation of the Greek word stauros. The word "stauros" referred to any upright wooden stake firmly fixed in the ground. A stauros could serve a variety of purposes as, for example, a pole in a picket fence. The word stauros also represented a pointed stake used for impalement of human beings. This was an ancient form of punishment used to publicly display the bodies of executed criminals. [...] A tradition of the Church which our fathers have inherited, was the adoption of the words "cross" and "crucify." These words are nowhere to be found in the Greek of the New Testament. These words are mistranslations, a later rendering, of the Greek words stauros and stauroo". (The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology)

• The meaning of the crux simplex type of cross, i.e. the single torture stake, was still in use at the third century A.D. (McClintock & Strong’s Cyclopedia, "Cross")
• I use a part of Easton's article because this paragraph of the Wikipedia article is about the "stake" meaning of the cross. I included the rest of Easton's points at the next paragraph about the classical Ecclesiastical meaning of the cross. I do not want to cut anything but to use it one time each at the proper place. Otherwise, I will have to repeat the original "stake" meaning of stavros at the other paragraph as well, and so on.-- pvasiliadis  22:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for responding.

• It is certainly clear what σταυρός now means in Greek. It is almost certainly clear what σταυρός meant before the third century B.C. It is not clear what it meant in the first century A.D.
• If the New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology does say somewhere what you attribute to it, how come it also says (Vol. 1, page 391): "Corresponding to the vb. (stauroo) which was more common, stauros can mean a stake which was sometimes pointed on which an executed criminal was publicly displayed in shame as a further punishment. It could be used for hanging (so probably Diod. Sic., 2, 18, 2), impaling, or strangulation. stauros could also be an instrument of torture, perhaps in the sense of the Lat. patibulum, a crossbeam laid on the shoulders. Finally it could be an instrument of execution in the form of a vertical stake and a crossbeam of the same length forming a cross in the narrower sense of the term. It took the form either of a T (Lat. crux commissa) or of a + (crux immissa)"? You can check this text on the Internet here. On the following page, 392, it says: "It is most likely that the stauros had a transverse in the form of a crossbeam. Secular sources do not permit any conclusion to be drawn as to the precise form of the cross, as to whether it was the crux immissa (+) or crux commissa (T). As it was not very common to affix a titlos (superscription, loanword from the Lat. titulus), it does not necessarily follow that the cross had the form of a crux immissa. There were two possible ways of erecting the stauros. The condemned man could be fastened to the cross lying on the ground at the place of execution, and so lifted up on the cross. Alternatively, it was probably usual to have the stake implanted in the ground before the execution. The victim was tied to the crosspiece, and was hoisted up with the horizontal beam and made fast to the vertical stake. As this was the simpler form of erection, and the carrying of the crossbeam (patibulum) was probably connected with the punishment for slaves, the crux commissa may be taken as the normal practice." You can check this on the Internet here. Where can I check your quotation from an unspecified page and an unspecified context? Besides, apart from the New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, several other highly authoritative sources say that by New Testament times σταυρός was used of a cross.
• Easton does say that the cross of Jesus was not a stake. This fact should not be covered up. If, as you say, "specialists have a wide range of different opinions", would it not be more correct to present these different opinions, instead of giving only one set of them?
• If, in the twenty-first century "car" is still sometimes, even if rarely, used of a horse-drawn chariot, does it follow that "car" now means a horse-drawn chariot only, as it once did? If σταυρός was in some unspecified context still used in the third century A.D. to mean a stake, does it follow that "stake" was the only or even the usual meaning by then? Lima (talk) 09:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry to find on my return that Pvasiliadis has not responded here. However, he has kindly given the page number of his quotation from the NTDNTT. For the rest, he has again presented Easton's Dictionary, which says Christ died on a cross, as supporting the stake theory, and censored out the sourced statements that, according to several highly authoritative Dictionaries of the Greek language, σταυρός had in New Testament times a meaning wider than "stake".

He wants to exclude a link to Watchers of the Watch Tower World, on the grounds that it is anti-JW (a POV just as permissible as pro-JW). This site is incomparably more scientific than the JW site he himself has inserted. It gives dozens and dozens of verifiable quotations from ancient writers that indicate the meaning attached to the words in the New Testament accounts that have a bearing on the gibbet on which Jesus died (the subject of this article). On the question of the meaning of σταυρός, the JW site gives only one source: the book The Non-Christian Cross, by J. D. Parsons. For the rest, it is satisfied with non-scientific statements such as "It is noteworthy that some ancient drawings depicting Roman executions feature a single wooden pole or tree", without specifying where any record of those alleged ancient drawing can be found, and with making the unsupported statement that xy′lon means "tree" (when in fact it can mean anything made of wood).

I started out with the aim of reducing the many duplications. That led to removing the discussions of the cross in Christian art in periods long after the pre-Constantine era: this is of no help to understanding what was meant in the first century by σταυρός, ξύλον, crux etc. and is simply off-topic. I have moved every bit of it to a new article, which proves to be quite long (17,929 bytes). For the present I have left the recently augmented two galleries here, but I consider them also to be off-topic. Would it not be enough to have, as before they were added, just one drawing of a crux simplex and one of a crux commissa or immissa? Lima (talk) 17:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

PVasiliadis's revert

First, 50% of the "stake" info was cut out. Then 98%of the article left for the T / X / + grouped "crosses" vs 2% of "stake": remained a total of 1% of "stake" info!

First, 50% of the "stake" info was cut out. Then 98%of the article left for the T / X / + grouped "crosses" vs 2% of "stake": remained a total of 1% of "stake" info!

• It is clear that the meaning of "stavros" as stake was in use even at 3rd century A.D. I have put the source for it and personal refusal of it does not mean anything.
• You send me to check encyclopedic or scientific information at www.freeminds.org? I do not think that anti-Jehovah's Witnesses propaganda sites are acceptable sources. If you can write down the official point of view on the subject by Roman Catholics or Calvinists etc, it will be fine and informative.
• Whatever is said at Jehovah's Witnesses' site is the official religious point of view of a worldwide religious group —and only this. The point of view described at my site or freeminds.org site or xyz site does not mean anything at all.
• Easton's information is put at the corresponding parts of the article. I disagree with the "censored out" view.
• I feel that your "reduction of duplications" made the article 98% about cross and 2% about stake.
• I disagree with the separation of the article, resulting in another one (Cross in Christian Art). The Christian art and literature are the two sources available for the investigation of the subject. The article is lacking at least 50% of the available information on the matter. -- pvasiliadis  20:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• It may perhaps be clear that σταυρός was still used in the third century A.D. to mean a stake (though all we have in the article is someone's affirmation that it was so, with no indication of what third-century document(s) used the word with this meaning), but it is much clearer that it was used even earlier to mean a cross also. So it was not used solely to mean a stake. Since this is amply proved, there is no justification for removing the phrase "not solely" I have no objection whatever to inclusion of the statement about the third-century use of the term in the older sense. Did I omit it? If I did, it was by an oversight that I am quite willing to correct, or to let PVasiliadis correct. The fact that, in spite of what PVasiliades says, I did not remove it is proof that I do have no objection.
• Scientists write scientific articles on matters on which they disagree. You don't have to agree with a scientific paper's conclusion to recognize it as scientific. The Awake article, which pvasiliadis inserted as an external link, is far less scientific than the link pvasiliadis wants to censor. It is better to have a link to a site that gives verifiable information (and is thus scientific) than to a site that merely states an opinion and gives almost no evidence about the objective basis for the opinion. External links should be informative, not merely statements of a POV.
• PVasiliadis cut out Easton's information about the four forms of σταυρός, giving the false impression that, for Easton, only one was important. That is inacceptable.
• If the article is 98% about cross and 2% about stake, is it not possible that this is because of a lack of evidence that the σταυρός of Christ was in fact a stake, and the abundance of evidence that the earliest Christians, long before the time of Constantine, thought it was a cross? It is up to Pvasiliadis to produce evidence that at any time close to the event anyone ever thought that that particular σταυρός was a stake, instead of merely repeating that the original and primary meaning of the word σταυρός, which passed through a period of ambiguity until it came to mean, as today, merely a cross, was a stake (duplication), and instead of merely quoting a multitude of lengthy passages about the cross in Christian art that prove absolutely nothing about the meaning of the word σταυρός as used in the New Testament (irrelevancies).
• Suppose for a moment that Christians never used any representation of a cross before the time of Constantine. Would that mean that the σταυρός of Christ was a stake? It is certain that Christians never used any representation of a stake before the time of Constantine. Does that mean that the σταυρός of Christ was a cross? All the talk about the cross not appearing in Christian art before the time of Constantine is irrelevant, off-topic. Suppose even that it were true that the cross symbol were adopted because of pagan influence. Would that prove that the σταυρός of Christ was a stake? That question is irrelevant here. If Pvasiliadis wants to raise the question in Wikipedia, he should do so elsewhere, perhaps at Christian cross#Rejection of the Christian cross symbol.

Unless PVasiliadis can give satisfactory explanations on these points, I must undo his reversion. Lima (talk) 08:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Even after 24 hours, PVasiliadis still has not tried to defend his action. I will now undo his reversion. My apologies to anonymous editor 76.208.178.13 for thus restoring the link to the Awake article: I want to give as much leeway as possible to PVasiliadis. For the same reason I have not yet removed the two galleries of artwork. Lima (talk) 08:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear friend,

• I have already written the common sense notice that when we say "primarily" it is clear that it is meant "not solely".
• User Lima added again and again at the main body of the text the position Jehovah's Witnesses hold on the matter of the Greek stavros. But he objects to add the link to their official site that deals with it! This is not logical. Of course, Jehovah's Witnesses are not a scientific body, and the same applies to the Catholic Church or to the Greek Orthodox Church. Their opinions are just theological. If their point of view can be supported by some scientific facts, this is fine and we can add it here.
• I am not "cutting out Easton's information". As I have already explained, the part of Easton's article that refers to the stake is at the "Stake" section and the rest of it is at the "Cross" section.
• My reference about 98% "Cross" to 2% "Stake" article left after Lima's changes are not relating to the lack or abundance of evidence. I refer to Lima's "deportation" of the history of art of the "stavros" that is basic to the article. If scientists (historians, theologians, lexicographers etc) were not making researches all these centuries, we would still believe that Christmas are of Christian origin or that the Roman Catholic Church is God's kingdom on earth and that Pope is His earthly representative... So, let the sources speak out.
• The article is not named "the meaning of the word σταυρός as used in the New Testament". So the references about the stavros are not "a multitude of lengthy passages about the cross in Christian art that prove absolutely nothing about", as Lima mentions.
• Lima says: "All the talk about the cross not appearing in Christian art before the time of Constantine is irrelevant, off-topic." This is POV and reflects just a personal negation to a different-than-his point of view. As it is obvious (by the sources that Lima eliminates), many historians, theologians, dictionary writers and other writers have a different opinion.
• Lima says: "Suppose even that it were true...". So, according to his view, we (or probably he!) write the truth, not what the scientific or encyclopedic sources are mentioning about!
• I hold the position that "Watchers of the Watch Tower World Web site" is not an encyclopedic source but just a private site. Even worse, its aim is the propaganda against a religious group. I am sorry but this link has no place at an encyclopedia.
• Sorry for my over 24 hours delay to answer back. -- pvasiliadis  11:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

1. "When we say 'primarily' it is clear that it is meant 'not solely'." Therefore making this explicit does not alter the meaning, and so there is no valid objection to making it explicit.
2. I have not removed the link to the JW site. On the contrary, after someone else removed it, I have restored it! "Their views are just theological," says PVasiliadis about non-JW sites. That is far more true about the JW site. The others give many verifiable sources for the statements they contain, the JW site gives almost none.
3. Since PVasiliadis objects to the Easton statement being in the "stake" section, where he himself first put it, I will put it in its logical place, the introductory part, before either view about the form of the σταυρός is mentioned. It can then be read in its full context, free from any imposed POV.
4. The article is precisely about what was the form of the σταυρός (or ξύλον or crux or whatever other name you wish to give it) on which Jesus died. Whether a cross or a stake or a fish or anything else was used in Christian art centuries later proves nothing about what that form was. Would PVasiliadis please indicate who are the "many historians, theologians, dictionary writers and other writers" who, according to him, think that it does prove something about what the New Testament writers, centuries before, meant when they spoke of the σταυρός/ξύλον on which Jesus died .
5. It is extremely difficult to understand the logic of the observation that begins: "Lima says: 'Suppose even …'" At least, I have failed to understand it.
6. "I," says PVasiliadis, "hold the position that WWTW site is not an encyclopedic source." I, Lima, on the other hand, believe that it is far more encyclopedic than the JW site. Wikipedia rules do not give PVasiliadis the right to eliminate sites merely on the basis of his personal POV. "Even worse," he adds, "its aim is the propaganda against a religious group." So we should only allow propaganda for a religious group? Lima (talk) 14:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)