"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?

[onewithhim]

ElijahJohn, are you going to comment on post #8?


In addition to my statement that Easter is pagan, some further comments bear that out:

"There is no indication of the observance of the Easter festival in the New Testament, or in the writings of the Apostolic Fathers. The sanctity of special times was an idea absent from the minds of the first Christians." (The Encyclopedia Britannica, 1910, Vol.VIII, p.828.)

"A great many pagan customs, celebrating the return of Spring, gravitated to Easter. The egg is the emblem of the germinating life of early Spring....The rabbit is a pagan symbol and has always been an emblem of fertility." (The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1913, Vol.V, p.227.)

"What means the term 'Easter' itself? It is not a Christian name. It bears its Chaldean origin on its very forehead. Easter is nothing else than Astarte, one of the titles of Beltis, the queen of heaven, whose name,...as found by Layard on the Assyrian monuments, is Ishtar. Such is the history of Easter. The popular observances that still attend the period of its celebration amply confirm the testimony of history as to its Babylonian character. The hot cross buns of Good Friday, and the dyed eggs of Pasch or Easter Sunday, figured in the Chaldean rites just as they do now." (The Two Babylons, Alexander Hislop, N.Y., 1943, pp.103,107,108...see also Jeremiah 7:18)

[marco]

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."

Were I translating Livy I would accept "crux" as a cross. Ennius, 100 years before Livy, used crux as cross. It referred not just to a normal cross shape but to the instruments of punishment: gallows or the tree on which the victim was crucified, or to an upright pole on which the victim was fixed.

The verb used in Church Latin texts is crucifixus, which doesn't as far as I know, appear in classical Latin. The verb: cruciare was used meaning to crucify or torture. Since we are told Christ was forced to carry his cross we can take it he wasn't simply impaled to a tree. I see no good reason for departing from the standard crucifixion. Tacitus doesn't help since he simply says Christ suffered the death penalty under Pilate, which would have been crucifixion, but on what is anybody's guess.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 8 by onewithhim]

Sorry owh. Didn't really have much to add. I just remember receiving an invitation from the JW organization to join them in celebrating the Lord's supper. It was around Easter time a few years ago, so I guess I just assumed it was an Easter celebration. Resurrection day.

But...thanks for the clarification.

[onewithhim]

EJ....Check out the Memorial celebration this coming Spring. We will be giving out invitations again, and anyone even slightly interested is welcome to come. (No collection is taken.) It is the Memorial of Christ's death that he told his anointed brothers to celebrate until he comes. (Luke 22:19,20; I Corinthians 11:23-26)

It is the only celebration that he instituted or endorsed. All the other celebrations are man-made, including his resurrection (even though we each, individually, honor his resurrection).

.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 1 by Elijah John]

Excellent posts already made by:

onewithhim
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 29#p834329
Tim - various translations
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 35#p834835
Tigger
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 91#p834891


Below is my contribution

QUOTATIONS FROM NON-WITNESS LITERATURE

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, not of one piece of timber, but of two pieces nailed together in the form of a cross. . . . -- The Non-Christian Cross, by J. D. Parsons (London, 1896)

The bible uses the word "Xylon" which simply means “timber, and “by implication a stick, club or tree or other wooden article or substance. -- The Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Strong.


Jesus died on a simple deathstake: 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. ---The Cross and Crucifixion, Hermann Fulda.

"STAUROS....denotes, primarily, an upright pale or stake. On such malefactors ware nailed for execution. Both the noun and the verb stauroo, to fasten to a stake or pale, are originally to be distinguished from the ecclesiastical form of a two beamed cross." - --Vines Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words s:

Although the ROMANS did uses crosses it was not commonly used until later periods.

"Descriptions of crucifixions contained in the thousands of Hebrew, Aramaic, Latin and Greek manuscripts [...] examined most commonly referred to dead prisoners being placed on some form of suspension device, or living captives skewered on stakes..."If you search for ancient texts that specifically mention the act of crucifixion [as we understand it today]" he says, "you will end up with only two or three examples." -- Gunnar Samuelsson, the University of Gothenburg

"Even amoungst the Romans the crux{Latin from which our cross is derived}appears to originally been an upright pole". -- The Imperial Bible-Dictionary

"When it comes to the individual terms, some conclusions can be drawn. A ) is a pole in the broadest sense. It is not the equivalent of a 'cross' . In some cases, it is a kind of suspension device, used for the suspension of corpses, torture or in a few cases executionary suspensions. Very little or nothing is said about what it was made of or how it looked." -- Gunnar Samuelsson, "-- Crucifixion in Antiquity: An Inquiry into the Background of the New Testament Terminology of Crucifixion" (Gothenburg University, 2010)

CONCLUSION: Jehovah's Witneseses thoroughly research the language and history of a word before making their translation decisions. While I have noted some have presented speculation and preferences, one person even present a song as "counter argument", this is all rather like refuting the theory of relativity, with a banana; convincing for some perhaps but not enough to convince those interested in academically sound research.


Further Reading: Appendix NWT [Torture Stake]
http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1001060094

[marco]

CONCLUSION: Jehovah's Witneseses thoroughly research the language and history of a word before making their translation decisions. While I have noted some have presented speculation and preferences, one person even present a song as "counter argument", this is all rather like refuting the theory of relativity, with a banana; convincing for some perhaps but not enough to convince those interested in academically sound research.

In throwing away hundreds of years of acceptance of Christ's cross, JWs have formed an opinion. The arguments presented are plausible but they hardly merit removing Christ from his place in history to impalement on a stake. Let us not confuse academic research with contentious conclusion.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 16 by marco]

Yes I see what you are saying, I don't agree (reasons presented above) but I am not here to impose my beliefs on anyone. I acknowledge fully what you have posted and agree that there may well be others that feel as you.

No offense was intended*, I know this forum has many different views.

JW


* I am not suggesting that you personally were offended, my comment was with regard to my previous post.

[2timothy316]

CONCLUSION: Jehovah's Witneseses thoroughly research the language and history of a word before making their translation decisions. While I have noted some have presented speculation and preferences, one person even present a song as "counter argument", this is all rather like refuting the theory of relativity, with a banana; convincing for some perhaps but not enough to convince those interested in academically sound research.

In throwing away hundreds of years of acceptance of Christ's cross, JWs have formed an opinion. The arguments presented are plausible but they hardly merit removing Christ from his place in history to impalement on a stake. Let us not confuse academic research with contentious conclusion.

While it might not be removing all doubt that Jesus was placed on stake and not a cross. Even if Jesus did died on a cross, the love of the cross and it's use as divine symbol is, according to the Bible, idolatry. This would be the same if people used a pole or stake rather than a cross, it would still be idolatry. An image in the 'form of any figure' used for worship is not acceptable by God.

I actually work with a woman that has a cross on every wall in her house. When I made note of it she told me the reason she does this is so to keep demons and evil spirits out of her house. To think that some piece of wood will protect her, this is dangerous thinking.

Habakkuk 2:18 “Of what value is an idol carved by a craftsman? Or an image that teaches lies? For the one who makes it trusts in his own creation; he makes idols that cannot speak."

Deuteronomy 4:16-18 "so that you do not act corruptly and make a graven image for yourselves in the form of any figure, the likeness of male or female, the likeness of any animal that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged bird that flies in the sky, the likeness of anything that creeps on the ground, the likeness of any fish that is in the water below the earth."

[marco]

Even if Jesus did died on a cross, the love of the cross and it's use as divine symbol is, according to the Bible, idolatry.

This is correct, though we moving away from the original question.

An image in the 'form of any figure' used for worship is not acceptable by God.

You are incorrectly extrapolating. The cross and the figure placed upon the crucifix are not worshipped. This is verified in the catechism which explicitly states that such things can "neither hear, nor see, nor help us." God forbids the use of idols to be worshipped in place of him.

I actually work with a woman that has a cross on every wall in her house. When I made note of it she told me the reason she does this is so to keep demons and evil spirits out of her house. To think that some piece of wood will protect her, this is dangerous thinking.

I'm not sure where the danger comes in but the lady's actions are idiosyncratic, certainly not endorsed by any church I know. Catholics are often accused of worshipping Mary when in fact she is paid honour in recognition of the great favour God bestowed on her. Only God is worshipped. To adore anything else would, as you say, be idolatry. This is well known.

[2timothy316]

Even if Jesus did died on a cross, the love of the cross and it's use as divine symbol is, according to the Bible, idolatry.

This is correct, though we moving away from the original question.

An image in the 'form of any figure' used for worship is not acceptable by God.

You are incorrectly extrapolating. The cross and the figure placed upon the crucifix are not worshipped. This is verified in the catechism which explicitly states that such things can "neither hear, nor see, nor help us." God forbids the use of idols to be worshipped in place of him.

I actually work with a woman that has a cross on every wall in her house. When I made note of it she told me the reason she does this is so to keep demons and evil spirits out of her house. To think that some piece of wood will protect her, this is dangerous thinking.

I'm not sure where the danger comes in but the lady's actions are idiosyncratic, certainly not endorsed by any church I know. Catholics are often accused of worshipping Mary when in fact she is paid honour in recognition of the great favour God bestowed on her. Only God is worshipped. To adore anything else would, as you say, be idolatry. This is well known.

It doesn't matter if it is endorsed. It happens. People turn to trinkets and talismans for protection. The Bible is very clear about this in Habakkuk 2:18, Deut 4:16-18 and quite a few more scriptures.

People pray to Mary, this is not acceptable either. There is no record in the Bible of anyone ever praying to Mary or a commandment to pray to Mary.

You are incorrectly extrapolating.

Um no. The Bible is clear. "Therefore, watch yourselves closely...that you may not act corruptly by making for yourselves any carved image having the form of any symbol, the representation of male or female,"

I'm just reading it as it says. So no images of Mary or of a symbol like a cross should be made. There is no extrapolating on my part. Are you trying to extrapolate it's ok to have images of symbols and people?