"Torture stake" vs. "Cross"

[Elijah John]

Jehovah's Witness changed the word "cross" to "torture stake" and the word "crucified" to "impaled" in their New World Translation of the Bible.

This seems to be the only translation that does so.

And JW illustrations of the crucifixion depict Jesus not on the cross, but hanging from a pole, a "torture stake".

For debate: Why did their translators do this?

What theological or doctrinal clarification could this change possibly convey?

Does this change defy history, or did the Romans "impale" it's criminals as opposed to crucifying them?

Also, do these changes enchance or detract from the NWT's credibility?

[Divine Insight]

I noticed this right away when some Jehovah's Witnesses came to my door and gave me a pamphlet with a picture of Jesus on the front similar to the one below:

I immediately asked, "What happened to the Cross?"



Apparently they rebel against the Christian Cross.

I've actually heard rumors that Jehovah's Witnesses are minions who are slaves to Satan and that they actually go around trying to get Christians to abandon the cross which is the first step toward abandoning Christ entirely.

Also a lot of statics can be found on Christians who converted to become Jehovah's Witnesses and shortly thereafter abandon religion entirely. So the stats seem to back up the rumors that the Jehovah's Witness is a movement that basically leads Christians to Atheism.

Once a Christian abandons the cross they are no longer protected from Satan's evil influence. <---- a religious superstition I've heard from devout Christians.

And now let's all stand and sing, The Old Rugged Cross

The Old Rugged Cross

On a hill far away, stood an old rugged Cross
The emblem of suff'ring and shame
And I love that old Cross where the dearest and best
For a world of lost sinners was slain

So I'll cherish the old rugged Cross
Till my trophies at last I lay down
I will cling to the old rugged Cross
And exchange it some day for a crown

Oh, that old rugged Cross so despised by the world <--- Shows that JWs are of the World and not of the Spirit.
Has a wondrous attraction for me
For the dear Lamb of God, left his Glory above
To bear it to dark Calvary

So I'll cherish the old rugged Cross
Till my trophies at last I lay down
I will cling to the old rugged Cross
And exchange it some day for a crown

In the old rugged Cross, stain'd with blood so divine
A wondrous beauty I see
For the dear Lamb of God, left his Glory above
To pardon and sanctify me

So I'll cherish the old rugged Cross
Till my trophies at last I lay down
I will cling to the old rugged Cross
And exchange it some day for a crown

To the old rugged Cross, I will ever be true
Its shame and reproach gladly bear
Then He'll call me some day to my home far away
Where his glory forever I'll share

So I'll cherish the old rugged Cross
Till my trophies at last I lay down
I will cling to the old rugged Cross
And exchange it some day for a crown

[catnip]

Jehovah's Witness changed the word "cross" to "torture stake" and the word "crucified" to "impaled" in their New World Translation of the Bible.

This seems to be the only translation that does so.

And JW illustrations of the crucifixion depict Jesus not on the cross, but hanging from a pole, a "torture stake".

For debate: Why did their translators do this?

What theological or doctrinal clarification could this change possibly convey?

Does this change defy history, or did the Romans "impale" it's criminals as opposed to crucifying them?

Also, do these changes enchance or detract from the NWT's credibility?

There is no evidence that this is the case or that there is any confusion between crucifixion and impalement.

Crucifixion was used with the intent to make the victim suffer as much and as long as possible--sometimes even having a ledge on the pole for the victim to support them and delay death. The word excruciating (Latin, excruciatus, or "out of the cross") is indicative of it. The first use of it that is recorded was by Alexander the Great in Persia. The Romans had used crucifixion for 70 years before Christ.

Impalement, on the other hand, means that the body is driven through a stake from the anus up. A depiction of it shows the victim with the stake from the bottom up through the mouth. It would cause instantaneous death.

[onewithhim]

Jehovah's Witness changed the word "cross" to "torture stake" and the word "crucified" to "impaled" in their New World Translation of the Bible.

This seems to be the only translation that does so.

And JW illustrations of the crucifixion depict Jesus not on the cross, but hanging from a pole, a "torture stake".

For debate: Why did their translators do this?

What theological or doctrinal clarification could this change possibly convey?

Does this change defy history, or did the Romans "impale" it's criminals as opposed to crucifying them?

Also, do these changes enchance or detract from the NWT's credibility?

Astute observation. I think perhaps that most versions usually bow to the King James Committee's renderings, but having said that I think that the NWT committee saw evidence in historical writings that a pole with a cross-bar might not have been used by the Romans. It was also on their minds that the Greek word "stauros" might not actually have meant a cross such as the pagans used as a religious symbol for centuries before Christ.

In the classical Greek the word "stauros" meant merely an upright stake, or pale. The verb "stauro'o" meant to fence with with pales, to form a stockade, or palisade, and this is the verb used when the mob called for Jesus to be impaled (or, crucified). If, as the verb suggests, Jesus was fastened to a "pale" or stake, it would be more accurate to use the word "impaled" instead of "crucified" (which implies being placed on a "crux"), though The Latin Dictionary by Lewis and Short gives the basic meaning of crux as "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 1st century B.C., crux apparently meant a mere stake. "Cross" seems to be a later meaning of "crux." A single stake for impalement of a criminal was called in Latin crux simplex, and one such instrument of torture was illustrated by Justus Lipsius (1547-1606) in his book De cruce libri tres (Antwerp, 1629, p.19).

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."

Paul Wilhelm Schmidt, a professor at the University of Basel (1904), in his work Die Geschichte Jesu (The History of Jesus), Vol.2, pp.386-394, made a detailed study of the Greek word "stauros." On page 386 of his work he said: "'Stauros' means every upright standing pale or tree trunk."

There is further comment, but what I've already written here should alleviate any criticism of the NWT for using "stake." There seems to be quite a bit of evidence that "cross" might very well be a subordinate meaning to "stake," as stauros had been closely studied by the committee. It is not just something they dreamed up, and they wanted to be accurate, after having learned of scholars' findings that "stauros" seemed to be a single upright pale.

It is certainly nothing to argue over. It doesn't really matter. We might even learn in the New System of things that it WAS a cross. That's a battle we don't need to pick. There is evidence that the cross was actually a "pale" so the NWT committee shouldn't be castigated for their rendering. They might be right, they might not be..... let's not make a big deal of something that doesn't really affect our faith. Is that reasonable?

[catnip]

Jehovah's Witness changed the word "cross" to "torture stake" and the word "crucified" to "impaled" in their New World Translation of the Bible.

This seems to be the only translation that does so.

And JW illustrations of the crucifixion depict Jesus not on the cross, but hanging from a pole, a "torture stake".

For debate: Why did their translators do this?

What theological or doctrinal clarification could this change possibly convey?

Does this change defy history, or did the Romans "impale" it's criminals as opposed to crucifying them?

Also, do these changes enchance or detract from the NWT's credibility?

Astute observation. I think perhaps that most versions usually bow to the King James Committee's renderings, but having said that I think that the NWT committee saw evidence in historical writings that a pole with a cross-bar might not have been used by the Romans. It was also on their minds that the Greek word "stauros" might not actually have meant a cross such as the pagans used as a religious symbol for centuries before Christ.

In the classical Greek the word "stauros" meant merely an upright stake, or pale. The verb "stauro'o" meant to fence with with pales, to form a stockade, or palisade, and this is the verb used when the mob called for Jesus to be impaled (or, crucified). If, as the verb suggests, Jesus was fastened to a "pale" or stake, it would be more accurate to use the word "impaled" instead of "crucified" (which implies being placed on a "crux"), though The Latin Dictionary by Lewis and Short gives the basic meaning of crux as "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 1st century B.C., crux apparently meant a mere stake. "Cross" seems to be a later meaning of "crux." A single stake for impalement of a criminal was called in Latin crux simplex, and one such instrument of torture was illustrated by Justus Lipsius (1547-1606) in his book De cruce libri tres (Antwerp, 1629, p.19).

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."

Paul Wilhelm Schmidt, a professor at the University of Basel (1904), in his work Die Geschichte Jesu (The History of Jesus), Vol.2, pp.386-394, made a detailed study of the Greek word "stauros." On page 386 of his work he said: "'Stauros' means every upright standing pale or tree trunk."

There is further comment, but what I've already written here should alleviate any criticism of the NWT for using "stake." There seems to be quite a bit of evidence that "cross" might very well be a subordinate meaning to "stake," as stauros had been closely studied by the committee. It is not just something they dreamed up, and they wanted to be accurate, after having learned of scholars' findings that "stauros" seemed to be a single upright pale.

It is certainly nothing to argue over. It doesn't really matter. We might even learn in the New System of things that it WAS a cross. That's a battle we don't need to pick. There is evidence that the cross was actually a "pale" so the NWT committee shouldn't be castigated for their rendering. They might be right, they might not be..... let's not make a big deal of something that doesn't really affect our faith. Is that reasonable?

The pole or "tree" is stationary, most likely reused for multiple crucifixions. The cross is the cross bar as Christ is said to have carried on his way to the cross, a common part of the process according to historians. This is why it is called a "cross".

[Elijah John]

It is certainly nothing to argue over. It doesn't really matter. We might even learn in the New System of things that it WAS a cross. That's a battle we don't need to pick. There is evidence that the cross was actually a "pale" so the NWT committee shouldn't be castigated for their rendering. They might be right, they might not be..... let's not make a big deal of something that doesn't really affect our faith. Is that reasonable?

I think catnip makes some good points about the distinction between crucifixion vs impalement. Gruesome, but pertinent points.

Glad to hear that JWs do not consider the point important enough to fight over.

Still, when one reads of this, and sees the illustrations, along with the (seemingly needless and arbitrary) prohibition of celebrating birthdays and Christmas, it hinders recruitment. I say this obviously as an outsider.

Your basic theology is sound and Biblical, but those offbeat doctrines seem unessarily off-putting to some would be converts, it seems to me.

Yeah, Pagans celebrate birthdays, but so do most monoTheists. Pagans eat dinner, but so do MonoTheists.

Pagans celebrate Yule, Many MonoTheists celebrate Christmas.

JWs and other Monotheists celebrate Easter, but remember, Oestre is a Pagan fertility holiday. So why not banish Easter from your calendar while you're at it?

Seems inconsistent.

[onewithhim]

Jehovah's Witness changed the word "cross" to "torture stake" and the word "crucified" to "impaled" in their New World Translation of the Bible.

This seems to be the only translation that does so.

And JW illustrations of the crucifixion depict Jesus not on the cross, but hanging from a pole, a "torture stake".

For debate: Why did their translators do this?

What theological or doctrinal clarification could this change possibly convey?

Does this change defy history, or did the Romans "impale" it's criminals as opposed to crucifying them?

Also, do these changes enchance or detract from the NWT's credibility?

Astute observation. I think perhaps that most versions usually bow to the King James Committee's renderings, but having said that I think that the NWT committee saw evidence in historical writings that a pole with a cross-bar might not have been used by the Romans. It was also on their minds that the Greek word "stauros" might not actually have meant a cross such as the pagans used as a religious symbol for centuries before Christ.

In the classical Greek the word "stauros" meant merely an upright stake, or pale. The verb "stauro'o" meant to fence with with pales, to form a stockade, or palisade, and this is the verb used when the mob called for Jesus to be impaled (or, crucified). If, as the verb suggests, Jesus was fastened to a "pale" or stake, it would be more accurate to use the word "impaled" instead of "crucified" (which implies being placed on a "crux"), though The Latin Dictionary by Lewis and Short gives the basic meaning of crux as "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 1st century B.C., crux apparently meant a mere stake. "Cross" seems to be a later meaning of "crux." A single stake for impalement of a criminal was called in Latin crux simplex, and one such instrument of torture was illustrated by Justus Lipsius (1547-1606) in his book De cruce libri tres (Antwerp, 1629, p.19).

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."

Paul Wilhelm Schmidt, a professor at the University of Basel (1904), in his work Die Geschichte Jesu (The History of Jesus), Vol.2, pp.386-394, made a detailed study of the Greek word "stauros." On page 386 of his work he said: "'Stauros' means every upright standing pale or tree trunk."

There is further comment, but what I've already written here should alleviate any criticism of the NWT for using "stake." There seems to be quite a bit of evidence that "cross" might very well be a subordinate meaning to "stake," as stauros had been closely studied by the committee. It is not just something they dreamed up, and they wanted to be accurate, after having learned of scholars' findings that "stauros" seemed to be a single upright pale.

It is certainly nothing to argue over. It doesn't really matter. We might even learn in the New System of things that it WAS a cross. That's a battle we don't need to pick. There is evidence that the cross was actually a "pale" so the NWT committee shouldn't be castigated for their rendering. They might be right, they might not be..... let's not make a big deal of something that doesn't really affect our faith. Is that reasonable?

The pole or "tree" is stationary, most likely reused for multiple crucifixions. The cross is the cross bar as Christ is said to have carried on his way to the cross, a common part of the process according to historians. This is why it is called a "cross".

Yes, I know. Did you read my post?

[onewithhim]

It is certainly nothing to argue over. It doesn't really matter. We might even learn in the New System of things that it WAS a cross. That's a battle we don't need to pick. There is evidence that the cross was actually a "pale" so the NWT committee shouldn't be castigated for their rendering. They might be right, they might not be..... let's not make a big deal of something that doesn't really affect our faith. Is that reasonable?

I think catnip makes some good points about the distinction between crucifixion vs impalement. Gruesome, but pertinent points.

Glad to hear that JWs do not consider the point important enough to fight over.

Still, when one reads of this, and sees the illustrations, along with the (seemingly needless and arbitrary) prohibition of celebrating birthdays and Christmas, it hinders recruitment. I say this obviously as an outsider.

Your basic theology is sound and Biblical, but those offbeat doctrines seem unessarily off-putting to some would be converts, it seems to me.

Yeah, Pagans celebrate birthdays, but so do most monoTheists. Pagans eat dinner, but so do MonoTheists.

Pagans celebrate Yule, Many MonoTheists celebrate Christmas.

JWs and other Monotheists celebrate Easter, but remember, Oestre is a Pagan fertility holiday. So why not banish Easter from your calendar while you're at it?

Seems inconsistent.

JWs don't celebrate Easter. It's so obviously pagan it's almost ridiculous.

You are right that our not celebrating holidays and birthdays is off-putting to "potential recruits."

All we can do is hope some people will see the reasons behind us not celebrating. It's tough. Three of my beautiful grandchildren ask me every year why I don't do Christmas or any of the holidays or birthdays, even though I give them more gifts all year than their relatives and friends do for holidays & birthdays. I also have pretty lights on my walls in my house to enjoy all year. I bake cookies and cakes with them throughout the year. I don't wait for a particular day. I explain that to them, and someday soon they'll get it. They are 10 and 12. Their parents are agnostic/atheist, so maybe they ask me all the time just to see how I'll react. It's OK. I trust that they have enough brains to figure out that it makes more sense to believe in God.

[2timothy316]

Jehovah's Witness changed the word "cross" to "torture stake" and the word "crucified" to "impaled" in their New World Translation of the Bible.

This seems to be the only translation that does so.

And JW illustrations of the crucifixion depict Jesus not on the cross, but hanging from a pole, a "torture stake".

For debate: Why did their translators do this?

The NWT is not the only one that translates xulon and stauros as stake.

Take Matthew 27:32 for example...

The CJB translates it as stake.
"As they were leaving, they met a man from Cyrene named Shim‘on; and they forced him to carry Yeshua’s execution-stake."
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=CJB

The ISR Translates it as stake.
"And as they were going out, they found a man of Cyrene, Shim‛on by name – they compelled him to bear His stake."
http://biblehub.com/isr/matthew/27.htm

And the Sacred Scriptures Bethel Edition translates it as stake.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_Sc ... el_Edition

As far as the cross translation, well that came much later. No one can pinpoint exactly when Christians adopted the cross symbol but none the less it was adopted after Jesus' death. There is plenty of non-JW research done on this subject. The cross has become so widely accepted that the translation of the word stauros has actually change to fit the doctrine with only hints of what it used to mean. So the JWs can't take credit for it's discovery. We can only take credit for having the boldness to leave the cross behind and take it out from our teachings. If there is one thing people should know about JWs is that we are not afraid to break free of the world's status quo when it comes to doctrine. Again, we are truth seekers and we're not trying to win popularity contests. Old doctrines, new doctrines or popular doctrines are irrelevant. My advice, follow the cross lore and it's symbolism. Like so many other things pagan that are in many religion's teachings, guess what the origin of the original cross is...

[tigger2]

The Bible writers used the Greek noun stau·rosʹ 27 times and the verbs stau·roʹo 46 times, syn·stau·roʹo (the prefix syn, meaning “with�) 5 times, and a·na·stau·roʹo (a·naʹ, meaning “again�) once. They also used the Greek word xyʹlon, meaning “wood,� 5 times to refer to the torture instrument upon which Jesus was nailed.

Stau·rosʹ in both the classical Greek and Koine is not a “cross� made of two timbers. It means an upright stake, pale, or pole, as might be used for a fence, stockade, or palisade. Says Douglas’ New Bible Dictionary of 1985 under “Cross,� page 253: “The Gk. word for ‘cross’ (stauros; verb stauroo . . . ) means primarily an upright stake or beam, and secondarily a stake used as an instrument for punishment and execution.�

New Testament scholar, W. E. Vine, in his An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, p. 248, tells us that the so-called "cross" was really an upright pale or stake (without a crosspiece) and that an apostate Church finally, in an effort to please pagan "converts," allowed them to keep their pagan symbols, including a two-piece cross. Only then did the cross become a "Christian" symbol.

Marcus Minucius Felix, (born, Africa?—died c. 250, Rome), one of the earliest Christian Apologists to write in Latin, wrote the following:

"Crosses, moreover, we [Christians] neither worship nor wish for. You [pagans], indeed, who consecrate gods of wood, adore wooden crosses perhaps as parts of your gods." - The Octavius of Minucius Felix, Ch. 29 (p. 191, Vol. 4, The Ante-Nicene Fathers).