Col 1:15-20 NWT . "other".
Col 1:15-20 NWT. "other" in vss16,17 and 20. Why?
The Nestle/Aland Greek NT and the ‘Diaglott’ by Benjamin Wilson (based on the Vatican manuscript 1209) are used as a basis for this discussion.
In the Col 1:15-20 in the NWT, why do the translators insert "other" five times in v16,17, 20 when the word "other" does not appear in the Greek text?
Here is a very good example gross misunderstanding of translation taken from the BBC Christian message board:
"Can you explain why the NWT has inserted the word "other" in Colossians 1:16-17 four times. There exist two Greek words for "other": allos which means another of the same kind; and heteros which mean another of a different kind. Paul could have used either here if he wanted to show that Jesus was "another" created thing. But he did not. There is no linguistic reason at all to insert this word here four times unless you are trying to make the original word "Firstborn" translate as first created. This is incorrect because Firstborn in this context means a title of pre-eminence as used in Psalm 89:20 .The Greek for firstborn is proto with tikto: firstborn. The Greek for first created would be proto with ktizo: first created. Paul did not use the second but the first.
"The above poster then goes on to direct any recipients of his comments to a web site to prove his argument http://www.douknow.net/jw_col115.htm
The site tries to prove (like the poster) that the NWT has inserted the word "other" due to "theological bias" to prove its argument, that Jesus is part of the created order of things.
What the poster and the internet site mentioned are really saying, is that Jesus is not part of the created order but part of a Trinity, that Jesus is really God-Jehovah and that they have one and the same essence (nature...), that the pre-human Jesus is eternal... and that the NWT has twisted the meaning of certain key texts to its advantage, to support an interpretation, a theology not supported by the Greek or English NT texts themselves.
In the matter of Col 1:15-20 does the NWT twist scripture as the above critics claim, or is it the other way round, that the critics of the NWT's rendering of Col 1:15-20 are twisting the outcome of the Greek texts because of Trinitarian theology (bias)?
First, there are three types of translations. (these are not interlinears)
Basically:
1. Literal (Formal Equivalence) Translations
These tend to look at individual Greek words put them into sentences and 'literally' try to put the 'equivalent' in modern English where necessary and laid out in such a way as to reveal the original style as much as possible. Literal (formal equivelance) translations have their strengths and weaknesses. Sometimes these particular translations incorporate 'Dynamic Equivalence' readings. The KJV, NRSV, NIV and others are examples of this (literal...translation), but sometimes lapse into 'Dynamic' readings.
2. Dynamic Equivalence Translation
These tend to look at blocks of meanings that are sometimes bigger than the word(s) or phrase(s) in order to produce good modern English. Dynamic equivalence is good for the English reader as it reads well, is simplified and is easy to comprehend. The TEV (also known as the Good News Bible), NWT, and others are examples of Dynamic equivalence translations.
Sometimes, when dealing with certain NT verses a dynamic equivalence may lapse into a literal (formal equivalence) translation mode. There is no absolute fine line here, and sometimes there is a crossover at times. Again the above has strengths and weaknesses.
3. Paraphrase
Is common in English. It puts the English in 'other words'. Parahrase has a similar goal as 'Dynamic Equivalence' i.e. to make the English text easily comprehensible and as simple as possible for the English reader.
A Paraphrase should never be looked at as a bible inthe traditional sense of the word. It is a commentary, an interpretation by its author. Care must be taken when handling any paraphrase and if the author's name is left out as if the author had no connection with the paraphrase edition, then suspect deception. It is not a bible and should not be thought as such!
From the Diaglott Greek Text NT.
Col 1:15 ος εστιν εικων του θεου του αορατου πρωτοτοκος πασης κτισεως1:16 οτι εν αυτω εκτισθη τα παντα εν τοις ουρανοις και επι της γης τα ορατα και τα αορατα ειτε θρονοι ειτε κυριοτητες ειτε αρχαι ειτε εξουσιαι τα παντα δι αυτου και εις αυτον εκτισται1:17 και αυτος εστιν προ παντων και τα παντα εν αυτω συνεστηκεν1:18 και αυτος εστιν η κεφαλη του σωματος της εκκλησιας ος εστιν [η] αρχη πρωτοτοκος εκ των νεκρων ινα γενηται εν πασιν αυτος πρωτευων1:19 οτι εν αυτω ευδοκησεν παν το πληρωμα κατοικησαι1:20 και δι αυτου αποκαταλλαξαι τα παντα εις αυτον ειρηνοποιησας δια του αιματος του σταυρου αυτου [δι αυτου] ειτε τα επι της γης ειτε τα εν τοις ουρανοις
If we look back to v16 we see"...οτι εν αυτω εκτισθη τα παντα-panta=(all)..." Transliterated:"because in him were created the things all. οτι εν αυτω εκτισθη τα πανταbecause in him were created the things all
Put into English sense: Because in him were created all things...
V16
NWT Because by means of him all [other] things were created...
NIV For by him all things were created...
KJV For by him were all things created
NASB For by Him all things were created
AB For it was in Him that all things were created
Why does the NWT read differently to these other translations?
It is because the NWT makes "explicit" what is "implicit", the other translations do not at Col 1: 15-20. Why?
Because of [Trinitarian] theological bias and this will be shown a little later.To convey the correct and full meaning of Koine Greek words or even sometimes just a single word into English may require a translator to use several English words, this is a common practice of NT translators all over.
This may be necessary if the full meaning of the Greek word(s) is to be brought out and fully understood by the reader.The same principle applies to modern languages just as it does to Greek/English etc.
IMPLICIT and EXPLICIT
what does "implicit and explicit" mean when it comes to NT Greek? It has been known for a long time that a NT "source" text(s) such as Col 1: 15-20 has an "implicit" meaning that requires it to be "explicit" so that the reader will fully understand. Making something explicit does not add to the text, it serves to give the reader explicit information which was implicit in the Greek text that its early readers knew and were familiar with, such as "Christians" of the past.
What readers of modern bibles do not realize is that many translations of the NT have added words that do not appear in the source text (Greek NT).
They only realize this when they start to compare different bibles. What they don't realise is that the translators of the Greek NT are making explicit (in the KJ, NIV, AB, RSV, JB, NEB and the NWT...) what is implicit in the Greek NT.
In fact many people would be surprised to learn that the bible or bibles they frequently use contain hundreds of words that are not in the extant NT manuscripts, and these are the sources their NT is derived from.
If you look at various English NTs and look at Col 1:15-20 you will find that the word count is different for these same verses and not only that, but some of the words are different too, there is/are no corresponding word(s) in the Greek text.
Some of these added words are not in any of the Greek text. Ask yourself why there are added words? And the answer is that, the translator(s) is making explicit what is implicit for the benefit of the English reader.
Depending on the English NT you are using the word count for Col 1:15-20 can be from over 100 words to just under 200 words, and that is for the same Col 1:15-20. Why the difference?
The translator has made explicit what he/she saw as implicit by adding more words that are not in the Greek text. If the translator didn't do this, the English text may be incomprehensible to the reader!
When doctrine (theology) is injected into a text.
When it is neither implicit nor explicit, then what is it? Here is a good example of doctrine being forced into an English translation which also reflects the theology and beliefs (Trinitarian) of the translators.
The New International Version (NIV)
The translators have changed "firstborn "of" all creation" to "firstborn "over" all creation". This is a deliberate addition (bias) to the text and cannot be justified. There is no way that "over" can be derived in any way from the Greek "genitive" (article) "of".
What does this mean?
What does this mean? It means that the translators of the NIV injected their doctrinal (Trinitarian) theological beliefs into the Greek text. They make Jesus appear to be "over" creation, apart from it, whereas the Greek genitive "of" would make him not ‘apart’ from creation, but ‘a part’ of creation.
The New English Bible - NEB (NT) reads 1 Col 1:15 this way:
"He is the image of the invisible God; his is the primacy over all created things" How does one derive "primacy over all created things" from "firstborn of all creation"? Again, "over" cannot be derived from the genitive (article) "of". Theological interpretation is being injected here, a belief-in other words-bias
Clarification verses Interpretation
When it comes to being 'implicit' and 'explicit' there is a big difference in clarifying a particular text and interpreting that same text. Clarifying a text draws out meanings of Greek words and phrases. But to interpret that same text narrows and sets limitations on the meanings of the text under consideration. It is not uncommon for translators of various English NT bibles to inject their interpretations that reflect their theological beliefs. Unsuspecting NT bible readers are unaware of this, they only realise it, when they compare different NT translations.
These are just two examples of (Trinitarian) translators injecting their theological interpretations into the Greek text. The above two examples are not just cases of illuminating the "implicit or explicit"; they are deliberate alterations to make it look like the Greek text means what they say it means. Many (Trinitarian) translations do this, and the general bible reading public hasn’t a clue this is going on and has been going on for a long time.
For decades the NWT has been repeatedly attacked for using the word "other". But why the decades of attacks? Trinitarians want Col 1 to mean what the NIV, TEV and others translations endeavour to make it mean.
Trinitarians just cannot accept and see the sense behind "firstborn of all creation", as this identifies Jesus as "of creation".
"Other" is distasteful to Trinitarians because it draws their attention that Jesus is in fact "of creation" and not "over", apart from creation.
Other NT texts where "other" is "implied".
The Koine Greek 'pan' ‘all’.
Various forms of 'pan' (all) are used in Col1 and have the basis meaning 'all'.
In English, when we use the word 'all' it usually followed by some sort of ‘noun’. When Paul uses 'all' after pointing out Christ as 'the firstborn of creation' it is in reference to 'the rest of creation'. 'All' is with the exception of God (Jehovah), and semantics can be used when we talk about Jesus, because it is his (Jesus) part in relation to the rest ('all') of the creation that is being talked about. And Trinitarians don’t seem to understand this or seem to ignore it, or explain it away. This again, is due to theological bias.
The word ‘all’ is a common Greek hyperbole; ‘other’ is understood, assumed in the context of Col. 1:15-20.
The Apostle Paul makes this very clear in 1 Cor. 15: 27, 28.
1 Cor. 15: 27 (transliterated) Diaglott
V 27. ‘all things he subjected under the feet of him. When but it may be said, that all things have been subjected, it is evident, that is excepted the one having subjected to him the all things’
V 28. ‘when but may be subjected to him the all things, then [also] himself the son will be subject to the one having subjected to him the all things so that maybe the God [the] all things in all’
In the right hand column of the page in the Diaglott it is put in 19th cent. English sense.
V 27. “for he has subjected all things under his feet. But when he says that all things are subjected it is manifest that HE is excepted, who has subjected all things to him.”
V 28. And when he shall subdued all things to him then the son himself will be subject to HIM who subdued all things to him, that God may be all in all.”
How are we to understand these two verses in 1 Cor. 15?
As written above, ‘all’ is a common Greek hyperbole; ‘other’ is understood, assumed. Paul makes this very clear from the beginning. Note what Paul himself says, God will make all things subject to Christ. Then Paul goes on to make the point clear to his readers “of course” when he says “all things” he doesn’t mean that God (Jehovah) will be subject to Christ-remember “all things”, but Paul means, not that God will be subject to Jesus but “all [other] things will be!
Therefore, Trinitarians can have no legitimate reason in objecting to ‘other’ in Col. 1:15-20. Paul uses “all things” interchangeable with creation. Therefore, we must still reckon with Christ’s place as the “first born of creation”, and so the first born of “all things”.
What I would like to demonstrate (hyperbole) now are two simple examples (and the English NT has hundreds of them) of where ‘other’ is ‘implicit’ and then made ‘explicit’ in the English NT.
Trees and Herbs
Luke 21:29
The Greek (transliterated) is: “the fig tree and all the trees”. The fig tree is obviously a tree and the ancients knew it was a tree. The idiom really means, the fig tree and ‘all’ the [other] trees. The translators of the LB, TEV, NWT and the NAB grasped the ‘implicit’ meaning locked up in the Luke text and made it explicit by bringing it out in their respective English NTs by putting ‘other’ into the English NT of Luke 21:29.
The NRSV, NIV, KJV, AB, NASB the AB violate this principle, their commitment to use modern English style and do not bring out the implicit, explicitly as the LB, TEV, NWT and the NAB do, this is also known as back peddling, hoping the NT reader will not notice. This hides an important truth from the NT reader and proper style of modern English and therefore shows theological bias.
The NAB, TEV and LB translators understand the idiom in Luke 21:29 and many other NT texts but refuse to apply that same understanding to Col 1:15-20 again, because of theological [Trinitarian] bias.
Luke 11:42
“mint and the rue and every pot herb” (transliteration) Diaglott.
NWT. “every [other] herb…
TEV. “all other herb…
KJV, NASB, NRSV, NAB, and the AB all translate Luke 11:42 in such away as to imply that “mint and rue” are not herbs, again confusing the NT English reader who is probably not aware of theological bias.
TEV and NIV again show plainly that they understand the Greek idiom by which ‘other’ is ‘implied’ (implicit) by inserting “all” into the Luke text.
Since the similarity of implication (implicit) is the same, then why do the [Trinitarian] translators not equally bring it out in Col 1:15-20? Again because of [Trinitarian] theological bias. Only the NWT correctly brings to life (makes explicit) the Greek idiom for the English NT reader. As it applies in many hundreds of places in the NT, the NWT equally applies it in Col 1:15-20.
Trinitarian translators are very selective, where in the NT English text where ‘implicit’ readings in the Greek are made ‘explicit’ in modern English, as it all revolves around the Trinity, They have to be very careful so as not to negate, compromise Christ’s position in their Trinitarian “Godhead”
As regards the “fig tree” it is a tree “of” belonging to the tree family, it is a part of the group, class and not ‘apart’ but ‘a part’ of the above; it is a part of the family of trees and not set apart from them.
As regards the “mint and the rue” they are a part “of” belonging to the herb family, they are a part of the group, class and not ‘apart’ but ‘a part’ of the above; they are a part of the family of herbs and not set apart from them as the KJV, NASB, NRSV, NAB, and the AB show in their translations.
What has “fig tree, and mint and rue” got to do with the Trinity?
Readers may think, what has “fig tree, and mint and rue” got to do with the Trinity? It has much to do with the Trinity, in that when [Trinitarian] translators do not make the implicit, explicit, by making the texts say what they want them to say, by misleading and misinforming their NT readers (and trying to hide it (implication) from them)) as the KJV, NASB, NRSV, NAB, and the AB do, they want the NT English reader to think that this is what the Greek actually says! Not so!
Col 1:15-20
We have seen that there are additional words that occur in the English NT (Just one example, see KJV, Col 1:15-20 where certain words that do not appear in the Greek are italicised but appear in the English NT KJV) Trinitarians react badly to the NWT using ‘other’ in Col 1:15-20. Why?
Is it to be said that that Christ created himself [v16]? That Christ is before God and that God (Jehovah) was made to exist by means of Christ [v17]? That Christ too needed to be reconciled to God [v20]?
When the use of ‘other’ is just shoved aside by Trinitarians it can be seen how ridiculous the opposition charge is to the use and insertion of ‘other’, when it is clearly ‘implicit in the text of Col 1.
Those who object to the use of ‘other’ want to do away with the real meaning of ‘firstborn of creation’. When the subject of ‘adding words’ to the English NT is looked at, we see translators freely adding words and ideas not supported or not implicit’ in the Greek text. The only way the reader can find out is to do their own research and that takes time, plenty of time…and they may be shocked by the results they find…!
The irony is, the NWT has been hammered by Trinitarian translators and scholars…because of their theological bias from the start!
And they don't like it when they themselves are exposed for taking liberties with the Greek text and for hiding the real truth from the NT reading public, who are generally ignorant of what goes on behind the translating scene.
“If the NIV, NRSV, TEV and LB translators are willing to” add words” in an effort to be transitive (shift) to the meaning of the passage away from the Greek text of Col 1:15-20 (or any other text in Greek) , Christ’s connection with creation and “all things”, then the NWT is correct and justified in adding ‘other’ to Col 1.
Many translators in their translations have consistently misunderstood and (knowingly) misapplied 1 Col 1:15-20 and that the principles laid down by ‘Nida and Taber’ are being flagrantly ignored by Trinitarian translators. The ‘implicit’ has to be made ‘explicit’ if the English NT (from the Greek) demands it and Col 1:15-20 like other English NT texts (Luke 21:29; 11:42 and hundreds of others) demands it!
Col 1 says Jesus is the “firstborn of all creation”; he is “of” creation. He belongs to (creation) the family, group, and class of creation. He is not ‘apart’ from the creation but he is ‘a part’ of it.
A final note.
It has been shown, that Trinitarian translations of the Greek NT have deliberately and subtly translated in such a way that the reader may think that, this is what the Greek NT actually says and it doesn’t. The word ‘other’ in the Greek of Col. 1:15-20 does not occur in the Greek, but has been made ‘explicit’ in the NWT because it is ‘implicit’ in that text, just as it is ‘implicit’ in other parts of the NT as in Luke 21:29 “fig tree” and “mint and rue” in Luke 11:42 (See TEV and TNIV).
The Trinitarian translators of the TEV and TNIV understand the ‘implicit’ in the texts of Luke 21:29; 11:42 and therefore use their judgment in translation and bring out (make explicit) the ‘other’ in these Luke texts. That being the case, why do they not apply the same rule to Col. 1:15:20 and make ‘other’ explicit? This is due to theological bias. One cannot have one rule for one and then not apply this same to another, just because it upsets one’s Theology, as this would qualify as unmitigated bias on the part of the translator and this has been shown in the various texts above.
letusreason
Thursday, 19 April 2018
LDS and the Book of Mormon?
LDS and the Book of Mormon
A Jehovah's Witness and a LDS member discussion.
LDS = italics
Well first off It seems your understanding of the Trinity is a little off.
So I quote the following from Wikipedia:
In Christianity, the doctrine of the Trinity states that God is one being who exists, simultaneously and eternally, as a mutual indwelling of three persons: the Father, the Son (incarnate as Jesus of Nazareth), and the Holy Spirit. Since the 4th century, in both Eastern and Western Christianity, this doctrine has been stated as "three persons in one God," all three of whom, as distinct and co-eternal persons, are of one indivisible Divine essence, a simple being. Supporting the doctrine of the Trinity is known as Trinitarianism. The majority of Christians are Trinitarian, and regard belief in the Trinity as a test of orthodoxy. Opposing, nontrinitarian positions that are held by some groups include Binitarianism (two deities/persons/aspects), Unitarianism (one deity/person/aspect), the Godhead (Latter Day Saints) (three separate beings) and Modalism (Oneness).
Reply,
As regards the Trinity, if something is true then it has always been true, it doesn’t take (hundreds of years) until the 4th century for it to become true! And no amount of councils can make it true; if it wasn’t true to begin with!
The Wikipedia is just quoting a man made creed and is not supported by biblical Christianity.
As for being “simultaneously and eternally, as a mutual indwelling of three persons” this is pure Hellenistic Greek Philosophical Metaphysics (try reading, some of the works of Plato, Plotinus’s Enneads, Parmenides and others…)
You say, “Opposing, nontrinitarian positions that are held by some groups include Binitarianism (two deities/persons/aspects), Unitarianism (one deity/person/aspect), the Godhead (Latter Day Saints) (three separate beings) and Modalism (Oneness).”
“…the Godhead (Latter Day Saints) (three separate beings)…”
If this is truly the case with LDS theology, then Mormons are “polytheists”. As you believe in three separate beings (gods). Not a bible teaching, but extra biblical, and therefore pagan. (end of quote)
"Know our own statement regarding the Godhead is much simpler than the Nicene creed.
We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost. (First Article of Faith, Pearl of Great Price)"
When you say, “We believe in… (above)” this wording smacks of Trinitarianism. But then you say that you believe in three separate personages! This to many would be very confusing, as you say you don’t believe in the Trinity as some (on this board) understand it (and I respect their right to believe what they believe), but the wording of your belief leads me to the only conclusion of polytheism-3 separate gods! Again not a bible teaching, but can be found outside of the bible.
You quote,
“(First Article of Faith, Pearl of Great Price). This document has no authority whatsoever. The bible itself is the only authority. (end of quote)
"As to the nature of God and the Godhead I provide the following:
The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us. (Doctrine and Covenants 130:22) "
Quoted from this message
Reply,
The above is not supported by the bible. The words you use, “The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit”, have more in common with Greek Mythology than the bible... The Greeks made the gods in their image and not the other way round.
And saying, “The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also…” Is diametrically opposed to what the bible teaches.
1 Corinthians 15:50 (King James Version)
“Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.”
Yes, as the bible plainly and clearly teaches, “flesh” and “blood” cannot inherit God’s kingdom. And it is of no use to try and add “bones” to make it palatable!
Just as, “…neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.”, likewise with the “flesh” and heaven, otherwise, we could turn around and say, “…corruption [does] inherit incorruption”. Brackets mine for emphasis!
As regard “God” what does the bible say, as opposed to, “Doctrine and Covenants 130:22”?
John 4:24 (King James Version)
“God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth”.
See also, 2 Cor. 3:17, 18; Eph 2:22.
Think about it! (end of quote)
"So there are two Physical Bodies and a Personage of Spirit, so three separate beings. For how they are one:
Though each God in the God-head is a personage, separate and distinct from each of the others yet they are "one God", meaning that that are united as one in the attributes of perfection. For instance each has the fullness of truth, knowledge, charity, power, justice, judgment, mercy, and faith.
Accordingly they all think, act, speak, and are alike in all things, and yet they are three separate and distinct personalities ... The oneness of the Gods is the same unity that should exist among the saints. (Godhead; Mormon Doctrine by Bruce R. McConkie)"
Again, you say, “So there are two Physical Bodies…”
Again, this is not what the bible teaches:
1 Corinthians 15:50 (King James Version)
“Now this I say, brethren, that “flesh” … cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.”
Notice the parallel contrast; “flesh” with “corruption”.
“For instance each has the fullness of truth, knowledge…”
If each has the fullness of knowledge, then whatever one knows the other knows, none would be ignorant of certain facts or would have to be given any etc.
Revelation 1:1 (King James Version)
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John.
As regards knowing, knowledge, it would seem to contradict:
“Godhead; Mormon Doctrine by Bruce R. McConkie”.
The emphasis being on (knowledge)-“For instance each has the fullness of … knowledge…”
In the Revelation given to John, it would seem that John had to be given the revelation by an angel sent by Christ! In turn, Christ had to given the revelation by God! At this time Christ is in heaven, not on the earth.
But if the Father and the Son are coequal, how could the Son be ignorant of things the Father knows? Like John and the (sent) angel, Jesus had to be given the revelation in order to hand it down from its source! Just as John and the angel were not the source of the revelation, neither was Jesus the source of the revelation-he was given it!
‘Jesus had two natures,’ some will answer. ‘When on earth he spoke as a man.’ (See Mark 13:32 KJV below)
And, yet, even if that were so, what about the “Holy Ghost”? If it is the third person of the Trinity, why does it not know? A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. And the “Holy Ghost” is part of the “Trinitarian” chain.
Mark 13:32 (King James Version)
“But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.”
If the spirit was a person, don’t you think Mark would have included the Holy Spirit in knowing or not knowing? The fact is, he didn’t! (end of quote)
"So when you say Trinity, I and the rest of the English speaking world think of One God who is somehow three manifestations. We believe in Three Gods who are one in purpose and I suppose we could have used the word Trinity had not someone else used the word for a different doctrine."
You say, “We believe in Three Gods…” It is totally irrelevant when you say, “…are one in purpose…” That is beside the point! The true point is, your belief, you believe in three gods, therefore, you believe in 3 gods, and therefore you are polytheistic. Not a bible teaching, that finds its authority outside the bible.
"As regards the Comma I actually did know about it. But let's declare my biblical prejudice:
With the discovery of more ancient mss. not available to the King James translators, many translations of the Bible have been produced since 1900 by Bible scholars.
However, based on the doctrinal clarity of latter-day revelation given to Joseph Smith, the Church has held to the King James Version as being doctrinally more accurate than these recent versions.
The newer versions are in many instances easier to read, but are in some passages doctrinally weaker in their presentation of the gospel. Therefore, the King James Version remains the principal Bible of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. (Bible; Bible dictionary of the LDS Scriptures)"
“With the discovery of more ancient mss. not available to the King James translators, many translations of the Bible have been produced since 1900 by Bible scholars.”
We are now in possession of thousands of manuscripts and parts of manuscripts going back to approximately (between) the 2nd cent upwards etc. So why have the LDS not revised and modernised the attitude towards the KJV and its some 20,00 errors.
Again, you quote “Bible dictionary of the LDS Scriptures” as if a recognised authority! As far as the bible is concerned it has no authority whatsoever!
“With the discovery of more ancient mss. not available to the King James translators, many translations of the Bible have been produced since 1900 by Bible scholars.
However, based on the doctrinal clarity of latter-day revelation given to Joseph Smith, the Church has held to the King James Version as being doctrinally more accurate than these recent versions.”
“However, based on the doctrinal clarity of latter-day revelation given to Joseph Smith, the Church has held to the King James Version as being doctrinally more accurate than these recent versions.”
In the light of many manuscripts being found how the LDS can say,”… the Church has held to the King James Version as being doctrinally more accurate than these recent versions”.
This is really beyond belief and ridiculous to say the least!
Like Christendom the LDS holds to doctrines that are not supported by the bible, these doctrines are extra-biblical and that some of the LDS belief system have elements taken from Greek philosophy and Oriental Buddhism, i.e. Life before birth, life after death… and others. These and other beliefs are to be found in the above. Not a bible teaching.
It is obvious you do not know that the KJV of the bible has over 20,000 errors in it!
The Book of Mormon quotes extensively from the KJV of the Bible, with its Shakespearean English, and it’s over 20,000 errors which were already considered archaic in Joseph Smith’s day.
It has troubled some people that The Book of Mormon, this “most correct” of books, lifts at least 27,000 words directly from the Bible version that is purportedly full of errors and that Smith later undertook to revise, the KJV! In other words, the book of Mormon has incorporated in it the same errors carried over from the KJV. The Book of Mormon itself has had several revisions and changes since the original.
A very interesting point to note as regards the book of Mormon:
A comparison of the first edition of The Book of Mormon with current editions reveals to many Mormons a surprising fact. The book said to be “translated. . . by the gift and power of God” has itself undergone numerous changes in grammar, spelling, and substance.
Who is “the Eternal Father”?
For instance, there is apparent confusion over the identity of “the Eternal Father.”
According to the first edition at 1 Nephi 13:40, “the Lamb of God is the Eternal Father.”
But later editions say that “the Lamb of God is the Son of the Eternal Father.” The two original 1830 manuscripts of The Book of Mormon still exist. One of the two originals, held by the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, has the words “the Son” added between the lines. Can you explain this?
Also,
As for the Mormon scripture Doctrine and Covenants, the book The Revelations of the Prophet Joseph Smith, by LDS scholar Lyndon W. Cook, explains in the preface:
Significant textual additions and deletions.
“Inasmuch as some revelations have been revised by those committees appointed to arrange them for publication, significant textual additions and deletions have been noted.” One such alteration is found at Book of Commandments 4:2, which said of Smith: “He has a gift to translate the book. . . I will grant him no other gift.”
Now please note this:
But when the revelation was reprinted in 1835 in Doctrine and Covenants, it read:
“For I will grant unto you no other gift until it is finished.”—5:4.can you explain this as regards this “most perfect of books?”
I would like you to explain some of these “ENIGMAS”?
I find it difficult to reconcile that about 20 Jews were said to have left Jerusalem for America in 600 B.C.E. but that in less than 30 years, they had multiplied and split into two nations!
How many children can a woman produce in a year, even if she had twins or triplets etc-why not work it out? If there were some 20 Jews and let’s say that three quarters were women - say fifteen women, who had at least twins if not triplets on average, once per year…how do you get two sprawling civilizations out of 15 women (2 Nephi 5:28) within 19 years of their arrival?
This small band supposedly built a temple “after the manner of the temple of Solomon. . ., and the workmanship thereof was exceedingly fine”—a formidable task, indeed! The seven-year construction of Solomon’s temple in Jerusalem occupied nearly 200,000 labourers, craftsmen, and overseers.—and yet there is nothing to show for it, no artefacts…2 Nephi 5:16; compare 1 Kings 5, 6.
Where is the archaeological evidence to be found to substantiate such a claim? If I go to the middle east and elsewhere, I see the evidence of ancient civilizations everywhere, where is your evidence?
Also,
Can you explain?
Careful readers of the Book of Mormon have puzzled over certain events that seem out of proper chronological sequence.
When were the first Christians?
For example, Acts 11:26 says: “The disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.” (KJ) But Alma 46:15, purportedly describing events in 73 B.C.E., has Christians in America before Christ ever came to earth.
How do you get Christians before Christianity (ever existed 73 BC) was brought about by divine providence?
Also,
Perhaps you could explain?
The Book of Mormon presents itself more as a historical narrative than as a doctrinal treatise. The phrase “and it came to pass” occurs about 1,200 times in the current edition—about 2,000 times in the 1830 edition. Many places mentioned in the Bible still exist, yet the locations of virtually all sites named in The Book of Mormon, such as Gimgimno and Zeezrom, are unknown. Where are they?
Also,
The Mormon story tells of vast settlements across the North American continent.
Helaman 3:8 reads:
“And it came to pass that they did multiply and spread. . . to cover the face of the whole earth.” According to Mormon 1:7, the land “had become covered with buildings.” Many people wonder where the remains of these sprawling civilizations are. Where are the Nephite artefacts, such as gold coins, swords, shields, or breastplates?—Alma 11:4; 43:18-20. The civilizations of the bible are there to be seen, but not so much as one in the book of Mormon.
Also,
You need to think about this:
Considering such questions, members of the Mormon faith do well to reflect seriously on the words of Mormon Rex E. Lee:
“The authenticity of Mormonism stands or falls with the book from which the Church derives its nickname.” A faith based upon solid Scriptural knowledge, rather than just on an emotional prayer experience, presents a challenge to sincere Mormons—as well as to all claiming to be Christians.”
Is it possible for you as an LDS member to correct what I have written? Perhaps, I have misunderstood you! I will stop the discussion here, as it will be updated later.
letusreason
A Jehovah's Witness and a LDS member discussion.
LDS = italics
Well first off It seems your understanding of the Trinity is a little off.
So I quote the following from Wikipedia:
In Christianity, the doctrine of the Trinity states that God is one being who exists, simultaneously and eternally, as a mutual indwelling of three persons: the Father, the Son (incarnate as Jesus of Nazareth), and the Holy Spirit. Since the 4th century, in both Eastern and Western Christianity, this doctrine has been stated as "three persons in one God," all three of whom, as distinct and co-eternal persons, are of one indivisible Divine essence, a simple being. Supporting the doctrine of the Trinity is known as Trinitarianism. The majority of Christians are Trinitarian, and regard belief in the Trinity as a test of orthodoxy. Opposing, nontrinitarian positions that are held by some groups include Binitarianism (two deities/persons/aspects), Unitarianism (one deity/person/aspect), the Godhead (Latter Day Saints) (three separate beings) and Modalism (Oneness).
Reply,
As regards the Trinity, if something is true then it has always been true, it doesn’t take (hundreds of years) until the 4th century for it to become true! And no amount of councils can make it true; if it wasn’t true to begin with!
The Wikipedia is just quoting a man made creed and is not supported by biblical Christianity.
As for being “simultaneously and eternally, as a mutual indwelling of three persons” this is pure Hellenistic Greek Philosophical Metaphysics (try reading, some of the works of Plato, Plotinus’s Enneads, Parmenides and others…)
You say, “Opposing, nontrinitarian positions that are held by some groups include Binitarianism (two deities/persons/aspects), Unitarianism (one deity/person/aspect), the Godhead (Latter Day Saints) (three separate beings) and Modalism (Oneness).”
“…the Godhead (Latter Day Saints) (three separate beings)…”
If this is truly the case with LDS theology, then Mormons are “polytheists”. As you believe in three separate beings (gods). Not a bible teaching, but extra biblical, and therefore pagan. (end of quote)
"Know our own statement regarding the Godhead is much simpler than the Nicene creed.
We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost. (First Article of Faith, Pearl of Great Price)"
When you say, “We believe in… (above)” this wording smacks of Trinitarianism. But then you say that you believe in three separate personages! This to many would be very confusing, as you say you don’t believe in the Trinity as some (on this board) understand it (and I respect their right to believe what they believe), but the wording of your belief leads me to the only conclusion of polytheism-3 separate gods! Again not a bible teaching, but can be found outside of the bible.
You quote,
“(First Article of Faith, Pearl of Great Price). This document has no authority whatsoever. The bible itself is the only authority. (end of quote)
"As to the nature of God and the Godhead I provide the following:
The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us. (Doctrine and Covenants 130:22) "
Quoted from this message
Reply,
The above is not supported by the bible. The words you use, “The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit”, have more in common with Greek Mythology than the bible... The Greeks made the gods in their image and not the other way round.
And saying, “The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also…” Is diametrically opposed to what the bible teaches.
1 Corinthians 15:50 (King James Version)
“Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.”
Yes, as the bible plainly and clearly teaches, “flesh” and “blood” cannot inherit God’s kingdom. And it is of no use to try and add “bones” to make it palatable!
Just as, “…neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.”, likewise with the “flesh” and heaven, otherwise, we could turn around and say, “…corruption [does] inherit incorruption”. Brackets mine for emphasis!
As regard “God” what does the bible say, as opposed to, “Doctrine and Covenants 130:22”?
John 4:24 (King James Version)
“God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth”.
See also, 2 Cor. 3:17, 18; Eph 2:22.
Think about it! (end of quote)
"So there are two Physical Bodies and a Personage of Spirit, so three separate beings. For how they are one:
Though each God in the God-head is a personage, separate and distinct from each of the others yet they are "one God", meaning that that are united as one in the attributes of perfection. For instance each has the fullness of truth, knowledge, charity, power, justice, judgment, mercy, and faith.
Accordingly they all think, act, speak, and are alike in all things, and yet they are three separate and distinct personalities ... The oneness of the Gods is the same unity that should exist among the saints. (Godhead; Mormon Doctrine by Bruce R. McConkie)"
Again, you say, “So there are two Physical Bodies…”
Again, this is not what the bible teaches:
1 Corinthians 15:50 (King James Version)
“Now this I say, brethren, that “flesh” … cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.”
Notice the parallel contrast; “flesh” with “corruption”.
“For instance each has the fullness of truth, knowledge…”
If each has the fullness of knowledge, then whatever one knows the other knows, none would be ignorant of certain facts or would have to be given any etc.
Revelation 1:1 (King James Version)
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John.
As regards knowing, knowledge, it would seem to contradict:
“Godhead; Mormon Doctrine by Bruce R. McConkie”.
The emphasis being on (knowledge)-“For instance each has the fullness of … knowledge…”
In the Revelation given to John, it would seem that John had to be given the revelation by an angel sent by Christ! In turn, Christ had to given the revelation by God! At this time Christ is in heaven, not on the earth.
But if the Father and the Son are coequal, how could the Son be ignorant of things the Father knows? Like John and the (sent) angel, Jesus had to be given the revelation in order to hand it down from its source! Just as John and the angel were not the source of the revelation, neither was Jesus the source of the revelation-he was given it!
‘Jesus had two natures,’ some will answer. ‘When on earth he spoke as a man.’ (See Mark 13:32 KJV below)
And, yet, even if that were so, what about the “Holy Ghost”? If it is the third person of the Trinity, why does it not know? A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. And the “Holy Ghost” is part of the “Trinitarian” chain.
Mark 13:32 (King James Version)
“But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.”
If the spirit was a person, don’t you think Mark would have included the Holy Spirit in knowing or not knowing? The fact is, he didn’t! (end of quote)
"So when you say Trinity, I and the rest of the English speaking world think of One God who is somehow three manifestations. We believe in Three Gods who are one in purpose and I suppose we could have used the word Trinity had not someone else used the word for a different doctrine."
You say, “We believe in Three Gods…” It is totally irrelevant when you say, “…are one in purpose…” That is beside the point! The true point is, your belief, you believe in three gods, therefore, you believe in 3 gods, and therefore you are polytheistic. Not a bible teaching, that finds its authority outside the bible.
"As regards the Comma I actually did know about it. But let's declare my biblical prejudice:
With the discovery of more ancient mss. not available to the King James translators, many translations of the Bible have been produced since 1900 by Bible scholars.
However, based on the doctrinal clarity of latter-day revelation given to Joseph Smith, the Church has held to the King James Version as being doctrinally more accurate than these recent versions.
The newer versions are in many instances easier to read, but are in some passages doctrinally weaker in their presentation of the gospel. Therefore, the King James Version remains the principal Bible of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. (Bible; Bible dictionary of the LDS Scriptures)"
“With the discovery of more ancient mss. not available to the King James translators, many translations of the Bible have been produced since 1900 by Bible scholars.”
We are now in possession of thousands of manuscripts and parts of manuscripts going back to approximately (between) the 2nd cent upwards etc. So why have the LDS not revised and modernised the attitude towards the KJV and its some 20,00 errors.
Again, you quote “Bible dictionary of the LDS Scriptures” as if a recognised authority! As far as the bible is concerned it has no authority whatsoever!
“With the discovery of more ancient mss. not available to the King James translators, many translations of the Bible have been produced since 1900 by Bible scholars.
However, based on the doctrinal clarity of latter-day revelation given to Joseph Smith, the Church has held to the King James Version as being doctrinally more accurate than these recent versions.”
“However, based on the doctrinal clarity of latter-day revelation given to Joseph Smith, the Church has held to the King James Version as being doctrinally more accurate than these recent versions.”
In the light of many manuscripts being found how the LDS can say,”… the Church has held to the King James Version as being doctrinally more accurate than these recent versions”.
This is really beyond belief and ridiculous to say the least!
Like Christendom the LDS holds to doctrines that are not supported by the bible, these doctrines are extra-biblical and that some of the LDS belief system have elements taken from Greek philosophy and Oriental Buddhism, i.e. Life before birth, life after death… and others. These and other beliefs are to be found in the above. Not a bible teaching.
It is obvious you do not know that the KJV of the bible has over 20,000 errors in it!
The Book of Mormon quotes extensively from the KJV of the Bible, with its Shakespearean English, and it’s over 20,000 errors which were already considered archaic in Joseph Smith’s day.
It has troubled some people that The Book of Mormon, this “most correct” of books, lifts at least 27,000 words directly from the Bible version that is purportedly full of errors and that Smith later undertook to revise, the KJV! In other words, the book of Mormon has incorporated in it the same errors carried over from the KJV. The Book of Mormon itself has had several revisions and changes since the original.
A very interesting point to note as regards the book of Mormon:
A comparison of the first edition of The Book of Mormon with current editions reveals to many Mormons a surprising fact. The book said to be “translated. . . by the gift and power of God” has itself undergone numerous changes in grammar, spelling, and substance.
Who is “the Eternal Father”?
For instance, there is apparent confusion over the identity of “the Eternal Father.”
According to the first edition at 1 Nephi 13:40, “the Lamb of God is the Eternal Father.”
But later editions say that “the Lamb of God is the Son of the Eternal Father.” The two original 1830 manuscripts of The Book of Mormon still exist. One of the two originals, held by the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, has the words “the Son” added between the lines. Can you explain this?
Also,
As for the Mormon scripture Doctrine and Covenants, the book The Revelations of the Prophet Joseph Smith, by LDS scholar Lyndon W. Cook, explains in the preface:
Significant textual additions and deletions.
“Inasmuch as some revelations have been revised by those committees appointed to arrange them for publication, significant textual additions and deletions have been noted.” One such alteration is found at Book of Commandments 4:2, which said of Smith: “He has a gift to translate the book. . . I will grant him no other gift.”
Now please note this:
But when the revelation was reprinted in 1835 in Doctrine and Covenants, it read:
“For I will grant unto you no other gift until it is finished.”—5:4.can you explain this as regards this “most perfect of books?”
I would like you to explain some of these “ENIGMAS”?
I find it difficult to reconcile that about 20 Jews were said to have left Jerusalem for America in 600 B.C.E. but that in less than 30 years, they had multiplied and split into two nations!
How many children can a woman produce in a year, even if she had twins or triplets etc-why not work it out? If there were some 20 Jews and let’s say that three quarters were women - say fifteen women, who had at least twins if not triplets on average, once per year…how do you get two sprawling civilizations out of 15 women (2 Nephi 5:28) within 19 years of their arrival?
This small band supposedly built a temple “after the manner of the temple of Solomon. . ., and the workmanship thereof was exceedingly fine”—a formidable task, indeed! The seven-year construction of Solomon’s temple in Jerusalem occupied nearly 200,000 labourers, craftsmen, and overseers.—and yet there is nothing to show for it, no artefacts…2 Nephi 5:16; compare 1 Kings 5, 6.
Where is the archaeological evidence to be found to substantiate such a claim? If I go to the middle east and elsewhere, I see the evidence of ancient civilizations everywhere, where is your evidence?
Also,
Can you explain?
Careful readers of the Book of Mormon have puzzled over certain events that seem out of proper chronological sequence.
When were the first Christians?
For example, Acts 11:26 says: “The disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.” (KJ) But Alma 46:15, purportedly describing events in 73 B.C.E., has Christians in America before Christ ever came to earth.
How do you get Christians before Christianity (ever existed 73 BC) was brought about by divine providence?
Also,
Perhaps you could explain?
The Book of Mormon presents itself more as a historical narrative than as a doctrinal treatise. The phrase “and it came to pass” occurs about 1,200 times in the current edition—about 2,000 times in the 1830 edition. Many places mentioned in the Bible still exist, yet the locations of virtually all sites named in The Book of Mormon, such as Gimgimno and Zeezrom, are unknown. Where are they?
Also,
The Mormon story tells of vast settlements across the North American continent.
Helaman 3:8 reads:
“And it came to pass that they did multiply and spread. . . to cover the face of the whole earth.” According to Mormon 1:7, the land “had become covered with buildings.” Many people wonder where the remains of these sprawling civilizations are. Where are the Nephite artefacts, such as gold coins, swords, shields, or breastplates?—Alma 11:4; 43:18-20. The civilizations of the bible are there to be seen, but not so much as one in the book of Mormon.
Also,
You need to think about this:
Considering such questions, members of the Mormon faith do well to reflect seriously on the words of Mormon Rex E. Lee:
“The authenticity of Mormonism stands or falls with the book from which the Church derives its nickname.” A faith based upon solid Scriptural knowledge, rather than just on an emotional prayer experience, presents a challenge to sincere Mormons—as well as to all claiming to be Christians.”
Is it possible for you as an LDS member to correct what I have written? Perhaps, I have misunderstood you! I will stop the discussion here, as it will be updated later.
letusreason
The Book of Mormon and The Bible-Which is true?
The Book of Mormon Compared with the Bible
TO MEMBERS of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints The Book of Mormon is the word of God and is considered to be in complete harmony with the Bible. Their view was concisely expressed by Brigham Young in Journal of Discourses of July 13, 1862: “The Book of Mormon in no case contradicts the Bible. It has many words like those in the Bible, and as a whole is a strong witness to the Bible.” Mormons with this firm confidence in The Book of Mormon should not object when others compare their book with the Bible. Their publicly expressed conviction that it is truthful is an invitation to others to make such a comparison. But first let us briefly compare the backgrounds of these two books.
The writing of the Bible was done over a period of more than 1600 years, and much of its historical narrative has been confirmed by many archaeological findings as well as by secular historians of different periods of time. Thousands of manuscript copies of the Bible in the original languages that date back close to the days of the apostles exist today. These are available for examination by all language scholars.
The claim made for The Book of Mormon is that it covers a period from about 600 B.C. to about A.D. 421. Joseph Smith claimed that he translated it from golden plates that he found in a hiding place revealed to him by an angel. The reason why the plates or copies of the text on them are not available for examination is explained by saying that the angel had forbidden Joseph Smith to show them to anyone except those designated by the angel. After the translating work was done the angel is said to have taken them away.
The mass of archaeological data and the secular records that confirm the accuracy of Biblical history is conspicuously absent with regard to what is claimed to be historical narrative in The Book of Mormon. Nor is the deep secrecy that surrounded the writing of The Book of Mormon characteristic of the production of the Bible. The stone tablets upon which God wrote the Law were neither taken back by an angel nor was Moses forbidden to display them. The same can be said for the other writings that make up the Bible. They were openly displayed and copies distributed far and wide.
THE SUPREME BEING
If The Book of Mormon contains the word of God, its doctrines should be in harmony with the Bible. Let us see if this is so regarding what it says about God. Concerning him Mosiah 3:5 states: “For behold, the time cometh, and is not far distant, that with power, the Lord Omnipotent who reigneth, who was, and is from all eternity to all eternity, shall come down from heaven among the children of men, and shall dwell in a tabernacle of clay, and shall go forth amongst men, working mighty miracles.” Here we find reflected the popular trinity doctrine of the churches of Christendom, which churches Joseph Smith considered to be wrong.
Consider a few more examples and note how The Book of Mormon boldly asserts that God and Christ are one God. Alma 11:38, 39 says: “Now Zeezrom saith again unto him: Is the Son of God the very Eternal Father? And Amulek said unto him: Yea, he is the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth.” Mormon 7:7 speaks about singing praises “unto the Father, and unto the Son, and unto the Holy Ghost, which are one God, in a state of happiness which hath no end.” The Book of Mormon has Jesus Christ flatly saying, at 3 Nephi 11:14, “I am the God of Israel, and the God of the whole earth, and have been slain for the sins of the world.”
Nowhere does the Bible make such Trinitarian statements. At no time did Jesus Christ claim to be the “God of the whole earth” or the “God of Israel.” On this point The Book of Mormon contradicts the Bible. Instead of saying that the Father and the Son are one God, the Bible reveals the Son to be a creature who was the beginning of the Creator’s creations and who is subject to the Father even after his ascension to heaven. This is shown at 1 Corinthians 15:28, “But when all things will have been subjected to him, then the Son himself will also subject himself to the One who subjected all things to him, that God may be all things to everyone.”
Rather than claiming to be God in the flesh, Jesus Christ pointed out his dependence upon the Father and his inferiority to him by saying: “I cannot do a single thing of my own initiative; just as I hear, I judge; and the judgment that I render is righteous, because I seek, not my own will, but the will of him that sent me.”—John 5:30.
Frequently the Hebrew text of the Bible refers to the great Source of life as Elohim. The trinity doctrine is not proved by the fact that this word is in the plural form. It is applied not only to the true God but also to the pagan god Dagon, as at Judges 16:23, 24. When referring to the Father, who is identified in the Bible by the proper name Jehovah, the definite article ha is often used before Elohim. Instead of indicating a plurality of gods or persons in one God, it means the plural number of majesty or excellence, as with the royal “we.”
JESUS CHRIST
A number of books in The Book of Mormon are dated before the coming of Christ, but they repeatedly talk about Jesus Christ, his sin-atoning sacrifice, his resurrection, his baptism in water, the baptism by the holy spirit, the salvation of man through Christ and the need of exercising faith in him in order to be saved. These things are mentioned with the great frequency that marks literary works produced after Jesus was killed and resurrected. Such statements about him become anachronisms in the time setting given them by The Book of Mormon. Being out of time-order, they conflict with the Bible, which places similar statements after Christ, not before his coming.
As might be expected when events are talked about out of time-order, The Book of Mormon occasionally slips and refers to them in the past tense instead of in the future tense. At 2 Nephi 31:6, 8 this is done. Speaking of Jesus Christ, these verses state: “Now, I would ask of you, my beloved brethren, wherein the Lamb of God did fulfil all righteousness in being baptized by water? Wherefore, after he was baptized with water the Holy Ghost descended upon him in the form of a dove.” These verses are assigned a date between 559 B.C. and 545 B.C. The same thing is done at 2 Nephi 33:6: “I glory in my Jesus, for he hath redeemed my soul from hell.” How can a person supposedly living long before Christ made his sacrifice say that Christ had redeemed him?
About 124 years before Jesus was born in Bethlehem, The Book of Mormon has people crying out: “O have mercy, and apply the atoning blood of Christ that we may receive forgiveness of our sins, and our hearts may be purified; for we believe in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who created heaven and earth, and all things; who shall come down among the children of men.” (Mosiah 4:2) How can a people cry for forgiveness of sins by the atoning blood of Christ long before that blood was shed and at a time when God’s people were required to rely upon the animal sacrifices of the Law for atonement of sins?
Why do none of the Hebrew Bible writers talk about Jesus Christ, his sin-atoning sacrifice and resurrection as The Book of Mormon does? Did God reveal these vitally important things to people living in North America at that time and not to these beloved Hebrew servants of his? Mosiah 3:13 says: “The Lord God hath sent his holy prophets among all the children of men, to declare these things to every kindred, nation, and tongue, that thereby whosoever should believe that Christ should come, the same might receive remission of their sins.” Why, then, did not the prophets living prior to 124 B.C., when Mosiah was supposed to have been written, mention these things in their inspired writings?
It would be wholly incredible to claim that the Bible text as we have it today is so defective because of copyist errors that not one reference to Jesus Christ by name and to his sacrifice was left in the copious writings of the Hebrew Scriptures. If such references had ever existed, surely the writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures would have mentioned them. Rather than being grossly defective, the Biblical text as we have it today has been refined by comparison with very old manuscripts to the point where it is very accurate, little different from what the apostles had. What is subject to suspicion is not the accuracy of the Bible but the accuracy of The Book of Mormon.
Notwithstanding the fact that the Greek word biblía, from which we get the word Bible, was not used as a title for the Scriptures until the fifth century after Christ, The Book of Mormon has the term being used more than 500 years before Christ. It says at 2 Nephi 29:3, 10, “Many of the Gentiles shall say: A Bible! A Bible! We have got a Bible, and there cannot be any more Bible. Wherefore, because that ye have a Bible ye need not suppose that it contains all my words.” The term Bible, or biblía, means “books” or “booklets” and is applied to the collection of inspired writings that are bound in codex form, that is with leaves and covers. No such collection existed when 2 Nephi was supposed to have been written. Here, then, is another inconsistency on the part of The Book of Mormon.
BIBLICAL QUOTES AND EXPRESSIONS
A very striking thing about The Book of Mormon is the frequent quotes or near quotes it makes from the Bible, the Authorized or King James Version. This was the version that was popular during the days of Joseph Smith. The books of the Bible were originally written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek without chapter and verse divisions. These came in the sixteenth century after Christ. But in the numerous direct quotes from the Bible that are made by The Book of Mormon, the very same verse divisions as found in the Authorized Version are generally used. Except for the occasional addition of a few words the quotations are identical with the Authorized Version. For example: 1 Nephi 20 and 21 are the same as Isaiah 48 and 49; 2 Nephi 7 and 8 are the same as Isaiah 50 to 52:2; 2 Nephi 12 to 24 is the same as Isaiah 2 to 14; 2 Nephi 27:25-35 is the same as Isaiah 29:13-24; Mosiah 14 is the same as Isaiah 53; 3 Nephi 24 is the same as Malachi 3; 3 Nephi 25 is the same as Malachi 4 and Moroni 10:9-17 is basically the same as 1 Corinthians 12:8-11. These are only a few of the many practically direct quotations from the Authorized Version of the Bible.
The Book of Mormon has men who are supposed to have lived...
Interestingly enough, The Book of Mormon has men who are supposed to have lived several hundred years before Christ using expressions that are found in the Greek Scriptures of the Bible, which Scriptures were written after the time of Christ. Paul’s expression at Hebrews 13:8 is used at least five times. He said: “Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.” (AV) Its first appearance in The Book of Mormon is at 1 Nephi 10:18, which was supposedly written more than 600 years before the days of the apostle Paul. It says: “For he is the same yesterday, to-day, and forever.” The other places where it appears are 2 Nephi 27:23, Alma 31:17, Mormon 9:9 and Moroni 10:19. The expression Paul used about the resurrection of Christ’s anointed followers at 1 Corinthians 15:53 is also used in several places. Paul said: “For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.” (AV) Notice the similarity to this famous expression of Mosiah 16:10: “Even this mortal shall put on immortality, and this corruption shall put on incorruption.” Variations of it appear at Alma 40:2 and 41:4. Both of these books are dated before Christ.
At Hebrews 3:8, 11 (AV), which quotes from Psalm 95:8, 11, it is written: “Harden not your hearts, as in the provocation, in the day of temptation in the wilderness. So I sware in my wrath, They shall not enter into my rest.” See the similarity of this statement at Alma 12:35, which is dated 82 B.C.: “Whosoever will harden his heart and will do iniquity, behold, I swear in my wrath that he shall not enter into my rest.” Verses 36 and 37 repeat the expression. A few verses back in this same chapter there is another expression found in Paul’s letter to the Hebrews with a slight variation. Verse 27 says: “It was appointed unto men that they must die; and after death, they must come to judgment.” The same expression appears at Hebrews 9:27.
Sometimes a verse in The Book of Mormon will contain familiar expressions from more than one place in the Bible. For example, Alma 34:36 states: “This I know, because the Lord hath said he dwelleth not in unholy temples, but in the hearts of the righteous doth he dwell; yea, and he has also said that the righteous shall sit down in his kingdom, to go no more out; but their garments should be made white through the blood of the Lamb.” The part about God not dwelling in temples is a variation of Stephen’s statement at Acts 7:48. It was Jesus who said the righteous would sit down in the kingdom. His words are recorded at Luke 13:29. The part about the white garments corresponds with Revelation 7:14. Another example is Mormon 9:9: “For do we not read that God is the same yesterday, today, and forever, and in him there is no variableness neither shadow of changing?” These expressions came from Hebrews 13:8 and James 1:17. Although Mormon is supposed to have said this in North America about 400 years after Christ, it is obvious where the statements originated.
The Book of Mormon has Jesus Christ appearing...
The Book of Mormon has Jesus Christ appearing in the flesh to the people of North America after his resurrection and ascension. Much of what it represents him as saying to the people are expressions written in the Bible. Lengthy quotations from the Authorized Version of what he said in Palestine are put in his mouth as being said in North America. For example, 3 Nephi 12:3-18, 21-28 and 31-45 are practically identical, verse for verse, with Matthew 5:3-18, 21-28 and 31-45 in the Authorized Version. This will also be found true when comparing 3 Nephi 13 with Matthew 6 as well as 3 Nephi 14 with Matthew 7. The type of similarities that comparison of these passages reveals would not have existed if Jesus had truly repeated these things to another people and they were written by different writers in a different language.
Many of Jesus’ statements
Many of Jesus’ statements recorded in the Bible can be found liberally sprinkled throughout The Book of Mormon, from those parts dated nearly 600 years before his birth to those dated over 400 years after his birth. What Jesus said about his sheep at John 10:9, 14, 16 is found, in part, at 1 Nephi 22:25, dated 588 years before Christ. Alma 31:37 uses Jesus’ words at Luke 12:22, although this book is dated 74 years before his birth. Jesus’ well-known expression at Matthew 16:19, where he tells Peter: “Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven,” is found at Helaman 10:7, which says: “Behold, I give unto you power, that whatsoever ye shall seal on earth shall be sealed in heaven; and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” This is dated twenty-three years before the birth of Jesus. It should be of interest to mention here that what Peter said about Jesus at Acts 3:22-25 appears, with the exception of a few alterations, at 3 Nephi 20:23-25, as words that Jesus was supposed to have said A.D. 34 to people in North America, but its close resemblance to the Authorized Version of the Bible identifies its source.
In the liberal use that The Book of Mormon makes of what is written in the Authorized Version it has included the spurious passage that appears in this version at Matthew 6:13, the latter part of which verse is recognized as being an uninspired addition to the original Bible writings. This spurious passage at Matthew 6:13, which says: “For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen,” appears in identical form at 3 Nephi 13:13. Also, the apparently spurious verses at Mark 16:17, 18 appear almost word for word at Mormon 9:24.
After comparing The Book of Mormon with the Bible
After comparing The Book of Mormon with the Bible, the inevitable conclusions that must be drawn are these: It is not in harmony with the Bible but teaches doctrines that conflict with it. The reason that it has, as Brigham Young said, “many words like those in the Bible,” is that it lifts from the Bible, in great number, expressions used by the Bible writers and weaves them into its own text. What also dresses it up to sound like the popular Authorized Version of the Bible is its constant use of the archaic English of that version.
Detailed history
Measured against the detailed history of...
Measured against the detailed history of the Pentateuch, the sublime beauty of the Psalms, the concisely expressed wisdom of the Proverbs and the upbuilding counsel of the Pauline letters, The Book of Mormon stands as a shabby, uninspiring and painfully wordy imitation of God’s Word.
letusreson
TO MEMBERS of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints The Book of Mormon is the word of God and is considered to be in complete harmony with the Bible. Their view was concisely expressed by Brigham Young in Journal of Discourses of July 13, 1862: “The Book of Mormon in no case contradicts the Bible. It has many words like those in the Bible, and as a whole is a strong witness to the Bible.” Mormons with this firm confidence in The Book of Mormon should not object when others compare their book with the Bible. Their publicly expressed conviction that it is truthful is an invitation to others to make such a comparison. But first let us briefly compare the backgrounds of these two books.
The writing of the Bible was done over a period of more than 1600 years, and much of its historical narrative has been confirmed by many archaeological findings as well as by secular historians of different periods of time. Thousands of manuscript copies of the Bible in the original languages that date back close to the days of the apostles exist today. These are available for examination by all language scholars.
The claim made for The Book of Mormon is that it covers a period from about 600 B.C. to about A.D. 421. Joseph Smith claimed that he translated it from golden plates that he found in a hiding place revealed to him by an angel. The reason why the plates or copies of the text on them are not available for examination is explained by saying that the angel had forbidden Joseph Smith to show them to anyone except those designated by the angel. After the translating work was done the angel is said to have taken them away.
The mass of archaeological data and the secular records that confirm the accuracy of Biblical history is conspicuously absent with regard to what is claimed to be historical narrative in The Book of Mormon. Nor is the deep secrecy that surrounded the writing of The Book of Mormon characteristic of the production of the Bible. The stone tablets upon which God wrote the Law were neither taken back by an angel nor was Moses forbidden to display them. The same can be said for the other writings that make up the Bible. They were openly displayed and copies distributed far and wide.
THE SUPREME BEING
If The Book of Mormon contains the word of God, its doctrines should be in harmony with the Bible. Let us see if this is so regarding what it says about God. Concerning him Mosiah 3:5 states: “For behold, the time cometh, and is not far distant, that with power, the Lord Omnipotent who reigneth, who was, and is from all eternity to all eternity, shall come down from heaven among the children of men, and shall dwell in a tabernacle of clay, and shall go forth amongst men, working mighty miracles.” Here we find reflected the popular trinity doctrine of the churches of Christendom, which churches Joseph Smith considered to be wrong.
Consider a few more examples and note how The Book of Mormon boldly asserts that God and Christ are one God. Alma 11:38, 39 says: “Now Zeezrom saith again unto him: Is the Son of God the very Eternal Father? And Amulek said unto him: Yea, he is the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth.” Mormon 7:7 speaks about singing praises “unto the Father, and unto the Son, and unto the Holy Ghost, which are one God, in a state of happiness which hath no end.” The Book of Mormon has Jesus Christ flatly saying, at 3 Nephi 11:14, “I am the God of Israel, and the God of the whole earth, and have been slain for the sins of the world.”
Nowhere does the Bible make such Trinitarian statements. At no time did Jesus Christ claim to be the “God of the whole earth” or the “God of Israel.” On this point The Book of Mormon contradicts the Bible. Instead of saying that the Father and the Son are one God, the Bible reveals the Son to be a creature who was the beginning of the Creator’s creations and who is subject to the Father even after his ascension to heaven. This is shown at 1 Corinthians 15:28, “But when all things will have been subjected to him, then the Son himself will also subject himself to the One who subjected all things to him, that God may be all things to everyone.”
Rather than claiming to be God in the flesh, Jesus Christ pointed out his dependence upon the Father and his inferiority to him by saying: “I cannot do a single thing of my own initiative; just as I hear, I judge; and the judgment that I render is righteous, because I seek, not my own will, but the will of him that sent me.”—John 5:30.
Frequently the Hebrew text of the Bible refers to the great Source of life as Elohim. The trinity doctrine is not proved by the fact that this word is in the plural form. It is applied not only to the true God but also to the pagan god Dagon, as at Judges 16:23, 24. When referring to the Father, who is identified in the Bible by the proper name Jehovah, the definite article ha is often used before Elohim. Instead of indicating a plurality of gods or persons in one God, it means the plural number of majesty or excellence, as with the royal “we.”
JESUS CHRIST
A number of books in The Book of Mormon are dated before the coming of Christ, but they repeatedly talk about Jesus Christ, his sin-atoning sacrifice, his resurrection, his baptism in water, the baptism by the holy spirit, the salvation of man through Christ and the need of exercising faith in him in order to be saved. These things are mentioned with the great frequency that marks literary works produced after Jesus was killed and resurrected. Such statements about him become anachronisms in the time setting given them by The Book of Mormon. Being out of time-order, they conflict with the Bible, which places similar statements after Christ, not before his coming.
As might be expected when events are talked about out of time-order, The Book of Mormon occasionally slips and refers to them in the past tense instead of in the future tense. At 2 Nephi 31:6, 8 this is done. Speaking of Jesus Christ, these verses state: “Now, I would ask of you, my beloved brethren, wherein the Lamb of God did fulfil all righteousness in being baptized by water? Wherefore, after he was baptized with water the Holy Ghost descended upon him in the form of a dove.” These verses are assigned a date between 559 B.C. and 545 B.C. The same thing is done at 2 Nephi 33:6: “I glory in my Jesus, for he hath redeemed my soul from hell.” How can a person supposedly living long before Christ made his sacrifice say that Christ had redeemed him?
About 124 years before Jesus was born in Bethlehem, The Book of Mormon has people crying out: “O have mercy, and apply the atoning blood of Christ that we may receive forgiveness of our sins, and our hearts may be purified; for we believe in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who created heaven and earth, and all things; who shall come down among the children of men.” (Mosiah 4:2) How can a people cry for forgiveness of sins by the atoning blood of Christ long before that blood was shed and at a time when God’s people were required to rely upon the animal sacrifices of the Law for atonement of sins?
Why do none of the Hebrew Bible writers talk about Jesus Christ, his sin-atoning sacrifice and resurrection as The Book of Mormon does? Did God reveal these vitally important things to people living in North America at that time and not to these beloved Hebrew servants of his? Mosiah 3:13 says: “The Lord God hath sent his holy prophets among all the children of men, to declare these things to every kindred, nation, and tongue, that thereby whosoever should believe that Christ should come, the same might receive remission of their sins.” Why, then, did not the prophets living prior to 124 B.C., when Mosiah was supposed to have been written, mention these things in their inspired writings?
It would be wholly incredible to claim that the Bible text as we have it today is so defective because of copyist errors that not one reference to Jesus Christ by name and to his sacrifice was left in the copious writings of the Hebrew Scriptures. If such references had ever existed, surely the writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures would have mentioned them. Rather than being grossly defective, the Biblical text as we have it today has been refined by comparison with very old manuscripts to the point where it is very accurate, little different from what the apostles had. What is subject to suspicion is not the accuracy of the Bible but the accuracy of The Book of Mormon.
Notwithstanding the fact that the Greek word biblía, from which we get the word Bible, was not used as a title for the Scriptures until the fifth century after Christ, The Book of Mormon has the term being used more than 500 years before Christ. It says at 2 Nephi 29:3, 10, “Many of the Gentiles shall say: A Bible! A Bible! We have got a Bible, and there cannot be any more Bible. Wherefore, because that ye have a Bible ye need not suppose that it contains all my words.” The term Bible, or biblía, means “books” or “booklets” and is applied to the collection of inspired writings that are bound in codex form, that is with leaves and covers. No such collection existed when 2 Nephi was supposed to have been written. Here, then, is another inconsistency on the part of The Book of Mormon.
BIBLICAL QUOTES AND EXPRESSIONS
A very striking thing about The Book of Mormon is the frequent quotes or near quotes it makes from the Bible, the Authorized or King James Version. This was the version that was popular during the days of Joseph Smith. The books of the Bible were originally written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek without chapter and verse divisions. These came in the sixteenth century after Christ. But in the numerous direct quotes from the Bible that are made by The Book of Mormon, the very same verse divisions as found in the Authorized Version are generally used. Except for the occasional addition of a few words the quotations are identical with the Authorized Version. For example: 1 Nephi 20 and 21 are the same as Isaiah 48 and 49; 2 Nephi 7 and 8 are the same as Isaiah 50 to 52:2; 2 Nephi 12 to 24 is the same as Isaiah 2 to 14; 2 Nephi 27:25-35 is the same as Isaiah 29:13-24; Mosiah 14 is the same as Isaiah 53; 3 Nephi 24 is the same as Malachi 3; 3 Nephi 25 is the same as Malachi 4 and Moroni 10:9-17 is basically the same as 1 Corinthians 12:8-11. These are only a few of the many practically direct quotations from the Authorized Version of the Bible.
The Book of Mormon has men who are supposed to have lived...
Interestingly enough, The Book of Mormon has men who are supposed to have lived several hundred years before Christ using expressions that are found in the Greek Scriptures of the Bible, which Scriptures were written after the time of Christ. Paul’s expression at Hebrews 13:8 is used at least five times. He said: “Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.” (AV) Its first appearance in The Book of Mormon is at 1 Nephi 10:18, which was supposedly written more than 600 years before the days of the apostle Paul. It says: “For he is the same yesterday, to-day, and forever.” The other places where it appears are 2 Nephi 27:23, Alma 31:17, Mormon 9:9 and Moroni 10:19. The expression Paul used about the resurrection of Christ’s anointed followers at 1 Corinthians 15:53 is also used in several places. Paul said: “For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.” (AV) Notice the similarity to this famous expression of Mosiah 16:10: “Even this mortal shall put on immortality, and this corruption shall put on incorruption.” Variations of it appear at Alma 40:2 and 41:4. Both of these books are dated before Christ.
At Hebrews 3:8, 11 (AV), which quotes from Psalm 95:8, 11, it is written: “Harden not your hearts, as in the provocation, in the day of temptation in the wilderness. So I sware in my wrath, They shall not enter into my rest.” See the similarity of this statement at Alma 12:35, which is dated 82 B.C.: “Whosoever will harden his heart and will do iniquity, behold, I swear in my wrath that he shall not enter into my rest.” Verses 36 and 37 repeat the expression. A few verses back in this same chapter there is another expression found in Paul’s letter to the Hebrews with a slight variation. Verse 27 says: “It was appointed unto men that they must die; and after death, they must come to judgment.” The same expression appears at Hebrews 9:27.
Sometimes a verse in The Book of Mormon will contain familiar expressions from more than one place in the Bible. For example, Alma 34:36 states: “This I know, because the Lord hath said he dwelleth not in unholy temples, but in the hearts of the righteous doth he dwell; yea, and he has also said that the righteous shall sit down in his kingdom, to go no more out; but their garments should be made white through the blood of the Lamb.” The part about God not dwelling in temples is a variation of Stephen’s statement at Acts 7:48. It was Jesus who said the righteous would sit down in the kingdom. His words are recorded at Luke 13:29. The part about the white garments corresponds with Revelation 7:14. Another example is Mormon 9:9: “For do we not read that God is the same yesterday, today, and forever, and in him there is no variableness neither shadow of changing?” These expressions came from Hebrews 13:8 and James 1:17. Although Mormon is supposed to have said this in North America about 400 years after Christ, it is obvious where the statements originated.
The Book of Mormon has Jesus Christ appearing...
The Book of Mormon has Jesus Christ appearing in the flesh to the people of North America after his resurrection and ascension. Much of what it represents him as saying to the people are expressions written in the Bible. Lengthy quotations from the Authorized Version of what he said in Palestine are put in his mouth as being said in North America. For example, 3 Nephi 12:3-18, 21-28 and 31-45 are practically identical, verse for verse, with Matthew 5:3-18, 21-28 and 31-45 in the Authorized Version. This will also be found true when comparing 3 Nephi 13 with Matthew 6 as well as 3 Nephi 14 with Matthew 7. The type of similarities that comparison of these passages reveals would not have existed if Jesus had truly repeated these things to another people and they were written by different writers in a different language.
Many of Jesus’ statements
Many of Jesus’ statements recorded in the Bible can be found liberally sprinkled throughout The Book of Mormon, from those parts dated nearly 600 years before his birth to those dated over 400 years after his birth. What Jesus said about his sheep at John 10:9, 14, 16 is found, in part, at 1 Nephi 22:25, dated 588 years before Christ. Alma 31:37 uses Jesus’ words at Luke 12:22, although this book is dated 74 years before his birth. Jesus’ well-known expression at Matthew 16:19, where he tells Peter: “Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven,” is found at Helaman 10:7, which says: “Behold, I give unto you power, that whatsoever ye shall seal on earth shall be sealed in heaven; and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” This is dated twenty-three years before the birth of Jesus. It should be of interest to mention here that what Peter said about Jesus at Acts 3:22-25 appears, with the exception of a few alterations, at 3 Nephi 20:23-25, as words that Jesus was supposed to have said A.D. 34 to people in North America, but its close resemblance to the Authorized Version of the Bible identifies its source.
In the liberal use that The Book of Mormon makes of what is written in the Authorized Version it has included the spurious passage that appears in this version at Matthew 6:13, the latter part of which verse is recognized as being an uninspired addition to the original Bible writings. This spurious passage at Matthew 6:13, which says: “For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen,” appears in identical form at 3 Nephi 13:13. Also, the apparently spurious verses at Mark 16:17, 18 appear almost word for word at Mormon 9:24.
After comparing The Book of Mormon with the Bible
After comparing The Book of Mormon with the Bible, the inevitable conclusions that must be drawn are these: It is not in harmony with the Bible but teaches doctrines that conflict with it. The reason that it has, as Brigham Young said, “many words like those in the Bible,” is that it lifts from the Bible, in great number, expressions used by the Bible writers and weaves them into its own text. What also dresses it up to sound like the popular Authorized Version of the Bible is its constant use of the archaic English of that version.
Detailed history
Measured against the detailed history of...
Measured against the detailed history of the Pentateuch, the sublime beauty of the Psalms, the concisely expressed wisdom of the Proverbs and the upbuilding counsel of the Pauline letters, The Book of Mormon stands as a shabby, uninspiring and painfully wordy imitation of God’s Word.
letusreson
Jesus, Jehovah and Psalm 102:25-27 and Hebrews 1:10-12?
Hello Colin,
I have taken note of your responses (below). I have focused on the main thrust of the points you make.
"Message 4 - posted by Colinscouser (U5770274) **, Yesterday
LUR
Yes, Hebrews 1:10-12 contributes towards the understanding that the New Testament identifies Jesus with YHWH. (In fact there are far more verses that do this than perhaps you imagine.)
You want to set this in context. So for context we could start with Hebrews 1:8 in which the Father addresses the Son as "O God". Yes indeed.
This is telling. Remember in John's gospel the Son addressed the Father as "My God" and in Hebrews the Father addresses the Son as "O God". And, for the avoidance of doubt, my understanding is that "O God" is grammatically correct. So that is part of the context for Hebrews 1:10-12. Context as you say is important.
[AND HERE IT COMES...]
In a small number of cases, it seems to be likely that a New Testament author is consciously changing the referent of the Old Testament passage from Jehovah . . . to Jesus Christ. . . . In other words, once an Old Testament passage was read as referring to "the Lord," rather than specifically "Jehovah," it was possible to apply what the passage said to Jesus. . . . " (pp. 171-173)"
Reply,
When you quote Prof. BeDuhn saying,
"In a small number of cases, it seems to be likely that a New Testament author is consciously changing the referent of the Old Testament passage from Jehovah . . . to Jesus Christ. . . . In other words, once an Old Testament passage was read as referring to "the Lord," rather than specifically "Jehovah," it was possible to apply what the passage said to Jesus. . . . " (pp. 171-173)"
The reason I posted "Jesus, Jehovah and Psalm 102:25-27 and Hebrews 1:10-12." is because it deals specifically with what you claim Prof. BeDuhn is inferring.
Prof. BeDuhn stops there because he does not want to be involved in theology, but nevertheless, he is giving an opinion "it seems to be" which could be construed as bordering into the field of theology, of which he is trying to keep clear and remain within the bounds of a tranlator
"...In other words, once an Old Testament passage was read as referring to "the Lord," rather than specifically "Jehovah," it was possible to apply what the passage said to Jesus..."
Prof. BeDuhn is on the right track, for the Apostle Paul refers to this "referent...". It could be that Prof. BeDuhn knows what Paul is inferring and he knows what Jehovah's Witnesses are inferring also, but, seeing his present work is about translation issues, he does not wish to be involved in the field of theology and its exegesis.
YHWH-JHVH in the Greek NT
"For a stronger support of this argument there are the words of the professor George Howard, of the University of Georgia (U.S.A.) who observes: "When the Septuagint Version that the New Testament Church used and quoted, contained the Divine Name in Hebrew characters, the writers of the New Testament included without doubt the Tetragrammaton in their quotations". Biblical Archeology Review, March 1978, p.14."
And this is what the NWT does in its NT
"...the writers of the New Testament included without doubt the Tetragrammaton in their quotations". Biblical Archeology Review, March 1978, p.14."
"Consequently several translators of the NT have left the Divine Name in the quotations from the OT made by the New Testament writers. It can be noted, for example the versions of Benjamin Wilson, of Andrè Chouraqui, of Johann Jakob Stolz, of Hermann Heinfetter,in Efik, Ewe, Malgascio and Alghonchin languages."
Prof. BeDuhn may not agree with the NWT translators replacing 'kyrios' (lord) with Jehovah in the NT (in certain parts...), but consider this, would he argue with the many scholars/translators (above and many more...(the above are just a few samples)) who argue otherwise in their respective translations, sevaral of whom I might point out, themselves Trinitarian!
From Greek back to Hebrew
Supposing a student who is fluent in Hebrew and Koine Greek...wanted to translate his Greek NT in to Hebrew. Our student knows that the Greek NT has many direct quotations from the Hebrew OT, which (OT) contained God's name in the form of the Tetragrammaton. Now, in order not to violate the Hebrew text and remain faithful to it, does our student take the Greek word 'Kyrios-lord' and translate it into the Hebrew 'Adonai-lord', in the place where the Hebrew text (from where the quotation is taken from) it has the tetragrammaton? NO! He does not. Our student knows that in the particular place in the Hebrew OT where he wants to put his translation, he cannot justifiably put 'kyrios-lord', because his Hebrew OT does not allow for it as in that place the Tetragram occurs not a surrogate of it, he would be corrupting the text and altering its meaning, resulting in ambiguity (See Ps 110:1 KJV).
Now look at it the other way round. Suppose our budding student wanted to translate the Hebrew OT where the Tetragram appears nearly 7,000 times into Koine Greek, with direct quotations from the Hebrew OT. Would he remain faithful to the Hebrew text when quoting it, or would he alter the quoted text by putting in not the Tetragram, but a substitute? He would, if he wanted to remain faithful to the Hebrew text put into the Greek NT (the quotations from the Hebrew OT) the Tetragram (YHWH-JHVH).
Those who criticize the NWT editors
Those who criticize the NWT editors for inserting the Tetragram-Jehovah into the English NT at the relevant places, seem to miss the point of the above in the illustration of our student. This includes Prof. BeDuhn, but the Prof. does acknowledge that the NWT has a legal right to insert it (Jehovah) in many places, but argues against others. All the NWT editors have done (like other translators) is what our student would have done, in order to remain as faithful as possible to the Hebrew and Greek texts, thus removing any ambiguity as to who is being referred to- is it Jesus or Jehovah, is it Jehovah or is it Jesus. Ps 110:1 in the KJV is a very good example of ambuguity and confusion.
Prof. BeDuhn acknowledges that the OT was interferred with when it came to the Divine Name - Jehovah (p. 170.) 'Truth in Translation, Accuracy and Bias in the English Translations of the New Testament.'
Please read first C&P to your browser (important):
http://www.yhwh-jehovah-inthent.blogspot.com/
Baically as I understand it, you believe Jesus is Jehovah because you think or believe that the NT says he is. Also, you as well as others use Prof. Jason BeDuhn as support for your belief that Jesus is Jehovah!
First it must be noted that when Prof. BeDuhn reached his conclusions regarding the 9 translations he compared, (KJV, NASB, NWT, NAB, NIV, NRSV, TEV, LB and AB) he concluded that the NWT "is one of the most accurate English translations of the NT currently available". And that when it came to the OT regarding God's name 'Jehovah' what were his conclusions?
"In this case, the NW is the only accurate translation of the 9..."
Prof. BeDuhn makes an astute observation (p. 170.) in that the removal of the Tetragrammaton (Jehovah) caused the biblical text to be "modified". This is a polite way of saying that the Hebrew text was corrupted, changed to suit the religious leaders of the day and eventually obscured Jehovah God's name, and made it a crime for even the common people to pronounce God's name (Christendom acts similarly). We believe that the NT suffered the same eventual fate as the OT when it came to God's name. Perhaps the thousands of 'variant' NT readings (manuscripts) also lends credence to this, as many of these manuscripts suffered alterations to suit the theologies of vying sects (the foretold apostasy-Montanists, Donatists, Novatians, Marcionites, Gnostics, Catholics, and many, many more) one and all claiming to be 'Orthodox'. One eventually became the biggest of the groups/parties/sects who eventually had the most members and converts and eventually won out and became the Catholics party. The rest were eventually supressed, persecuted and hunted down with the aid of the political state...
It would seem that Prof. BeDuhn rates the NWT as a very good translation in comparison. He has of course his conditional criticism with the Tetragram (YHWH/JHVH-Jehovah) being in the NWT NT. I use the word 'conditional' because Prof. BeDuhn (even though he has his criticisms) says on page 174:
"If the exact preservation of OT passages when they are quoted in the NT is a principle to which NW editors want to give priority, then the seventyeight verses listed in the table above is where they can put "Jehovah" in their NT text according to that principle".
Prof. BeDuhn may not agree with the NWT "editors" in putting "Jehovah" in all the places they have in the NT, but he recognises their legitamicy in doing so in dozens of places where the NT writers make 'direct' quotes from the OT containing God's name.
Prof. BeDuhn also wonders why the NWT editors have not put the tetrgram in places (NT) where they ought to have a legitimate right to do so!
At the very least Prof. BeDuhn recognises that at least the NWT editors have a legal case for inserting the Tetragram in certain places in the NT, where direct quotes are made from the OT containing God's unique name. Prof. BeDuhn notes in part of his conclusion (p. 176.) that the ambiguous word 'lord' is generic and not only applies to God, but to Jesus and others in the NT.
This generic title 'lord' is ambiguous and leads to confusion as to which 'lord' is being talked about and leaves the reader uncertain as to whom the passage refers. Prof. BeDuhn points out that these are reasonable points, though matters of interpretation, but, non the less, reasonable points.
It must also be pointed out that, although Prof. BeDuhn may criticise the NWT for inserting the tetragrammaton in the NT (in certain places) there are other translators/scholars who would argue against him, and even though these translators works are themselves translations (from the koine Greek in to various languages) they recognise, as do the NWT translators that the NT writers included the Tetragrammaton in their writings.
I'm sure Prof. BeDuhn and others have come across this:
Did the early Christians use the TETRAGRAMMATON in their writtings of the NT?
The Tetragrammaton in the Christian Scriptures according to the Babylonian Talmud.
The first part of this Jewish work is called Shabbath (Sabbath) and it contains an immense code of rules that establishes what could have been done of a Sabbath. Part of it deals with if on the Sabbath day Biblical manuscripts could be saved from the fire, and after it reads:
"The text declares: 'The white spaces ("gilyohnim") and the books of the Minim, can't be saved from the fire'. Rabbi Jose said: 'On working days one must cut out the Divine Names that are contained in the text, hide them and burn the rest'. Rabbi Tarfon said: 'May I bury my son if I don't burn them together with the Divine Names that they contain if I come across them". -From the English translation of Dr. H. Freedman.
The word "Minim" means "sectarians" and according to Dr. Freedman it's very probable that in this passage it indicates the Jewish-Christians. The expression "the white spaces" translates the original "gilyohnim" and could have meant, using the word ironically, that the writings of the "Minim where as worthy as a blank scroll, namely nothing. In some dictionaries this word is given as "Gospels". In harmony with this, the sentence that appears in the Talmud before the above mentioned passage says: "The books of the Minim are like white spaces (gilyohnim)."
So in the book Who was a Jew?, of L.H.Schiffman, the above mentioned passage of the Talmud is translated: "We don't save the Gospels or the books of Minim from the fire. They are burnt where they are, together with their Tetragrammatons. Rabbi Yose Ha-Gelili says: "During the week one should take the Tetragrammatons from them, hide them and burn the rest". Rabbi Tarfon said: 'May I bury my children! If I would have them in my hands, I would burn them with all their Tetragrammatons'". Dr. Schiffman continues reasoning that here "Minim" is referred to Hebrew Christians.
And it's very probable that here the Talmud refers to the Hebrew Christians. It is a supposition that finds agreement among the studious people, and in the Talmud seems to be well supported by the context. In Shabbath the passage that follows the above mentioned quotations relates a story, regarding Gamaliel and Christian judge in which there is an allusion to parts of the Sermon on the Mount. Therefore, this passage of the Talmud is a clear indication that the Christians included the Tetragrammaton in their Gospel and their writings.
Because of all we have said there are valid reasons to assert that the writers of the New Testament reported the Tetragrammaton in their divinely inspired work.
Quote,
"So yes, De Buhn (BeDuhn)supports the view that the New Testament is saying that YHWH is Jesus. As I and others have said before, and de Buhn agrees, the New Testament applies YHWH quotes from the Old Testament to Jesus." (un-quote)
The reply below shows how Trinitarians completely misunderstand and misapply and twist the scriptures.
So does "...the New Testament applies YHWH quotes from the Old Testament to Jesus." meaning that Jesus is actually Jehovah? It also shows that Trinitarians are making Prof. BeDuhn read how they (Trinitarians) want him to read.
The Application of Psalm 102:25-27 to the Son of God at Hebrews 1:10-12
Texts are from the NWT.
The words of Psalm 102:25-27 read:
"Long ago you laid the foundation of the earth itself. And the heavens are the work of your hands. They themselves will perish. but you yourself will keep standing; And just like a garment they will all of them wear out. Just like clothing you will replace them, and they will finish their turn. But you are the same, and your own years will not be completed."
These words are, as the context reveals, directed to the Sovereign Lord, Jehovah God. However, in the New Testament, in Hebrews 1:10-12, Paul applies these words to Jesus Christ.
Because of this, some Trinitarians have concluded that:
1) Jesus is the Creator and 2) he (Jesus) is "Jehovah of the Old Testament," the One to whom these words were originally addressed.
Is this what the author of Hebrews was teaching?
A careful examination of Hebrews 1 as well as other, related verses will reveal the truth of the matter.
Is Jesus the Creator?
It will be shown that in 1 Corinthians 8:6 the apostle Paul makes a careful distinction between the "one God" (the Father) as the one "out of whom all things are," and Jesus Christ as the one "through (di, a contraction of dia) whom" all things came into being.
Hebrews 1 begins by giving reasons why we should "pay more than the usual attention to the things heard" through God's Son. (Heb 2:1; see also, John 7:16, 17; 12:49, 50) In verses 1 and 2 we are told:
"God, who long ago spoke on many occasions and in many ways to our forefathers by means of the prophets, has at the end of these days spoken to us by means of a Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the systems of things."
Seeing things in context
Clearly, then, in context Hebrews 1:10-12 could not be teaching that Jesus is the Creator, for here, in the opening words to the Hebrews, it is clearly stated that God made all things "through" His Son.
Heb. 1:3.
"He is the reflection of [his] glory and the exact representation of his very being, and he sustains all things by the word of his power; and after he had made a purification for our sins he sat down on the right hand of the Majesty in lofty places."
Since Jesus' role in creation has already been discussed in(Heb 1:3), it is not likely that in verses 10-12 the author would return to the same point he has explained earlier. It could be that these verses from Psalm 102 are appropriately applied to the Son of God in view of his being the preexistent Wisdom spoken of in Proverbs 8. There he is described as a "master worker" alongside his Creator, Jehovah.3 (Pr 8:22-31)
*B. W. Bacon acknowledges, "The passage could be made to prove the doctrine that the Messiah is none other than the preexistent Wisdom of Prov 8, 22-31, 'through whom' according to our author [the author of Hebrews], v.2, God 'made the worlds.
* Benjamin Wisner Bacon, "Heb 1.10-12 and the Septuagint Rendering of Ps 102, 23." ZA'W 3 (1902). 285. Compare F. F. Bruce. The Epistle to the Hebrews, Revised Edition (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 63, note 103.
The heavens and the earth as 'the work of Christ's hands?'
It would certainly be appropriate to refer to the heavens and the earth as 'the work of Christ's hands' in a secondary sense in view of his being the mediator/agent of the creative acts of Jehovah God. Indeed, as the "master craftsman" Jesus was very much involved in Jehovah's works. (Pr 8:30, Jerusalem Bible) Still, there seems to be another reason why Paul applies verses 25-27 of the 102nd Psalm to God's beloved Son.
The Immortal Son
Is it to prove that Jesus Christ is 'Jehovah of the Old Testament' that the author of Hebrews makes such an application of Psalm 102?
Again, those who embrace the doctrine of the Trinity would likely answer.
"Yes (say trinitarians), the fact that a verse was originally applied to God, and later applied to Jesus, proves that he is Jehovah of the Old Testament."
Faulty reasoning
Using this type of reasoning one might feel justified in concluding that Solomon was Jesus Christ! Why? Because in the verses just previous to Hebrews 1:10-12 Paul wrote:
"8 But with reference to the Son: “God is your throne forever and ever, and [the] scepter of your kingdom is the scepter of uprightness. 9 You loved righteousness, and you hated lawlessness. That is why God, your God, anointed you with [the] oil of exultation more than your partners.” (Heb. 1:8,9)
As we have already discussed the translation "God is your throne," it is simply being pointed out that these words were originally addressed to Solomon in Psalm 45:6-7, but here in Hebrews 1:8-9 they are applied to the Lord Jesus Christ. The book Reasoning from the Scriptures, page 414, adds more to the point:
Jesus and Solomon
'It should be observed in Hebrews 1:5b that a quotation is made from 2 Samuel 7:14 and applied to the Son of God. Although that text had its first application to Solomon, the later application of it to Jesus Christ does not mean that Solomon and Jesus are the same. Jesus is "greater than Solomon" and carries out a work foreshadowed by Solomon.—Luke 11:31.'
So, when a description/title... is applied to the Father and also, this same description is applied to the son, it does not mean that they are the same person, because of the same description being applied to both! The above demonstrates that!
Nebuchanezzar and Christ
Also the scriptures tell us that Nebuchanezzar is called 'King of kings', but so is Christ, but we would not conclude that Nebudchadnezzar and Christ are the same person because the share the same title...
Ezekiel is called 'son of man', so is Jesus, but we would not say that Ezekiel is Christ because the 'son of man' is applied to both of them!
Concepts and ideas
Paul no more intended to identify Jesus with Jehovah than he intended to identify Solomon with Jesus. He did, however, apply certain concepts and ideas expressed in those verses which were originally applied to Jehovah God and Solomon, to the Son of God.
God is the source
The application of Psalm 45:6-7 to Jesus at Hebrews 1:8-9 shows that God is the source of Jesus' royal office and authority. Because Jesus "loved righteousness and hated lawlessness," Jehovah "anointed him with the oil of exultation."
Jehovah was both the source of:
Paul's words are, "God, your God (God of you)," when referring to the One who anointed Jesus. Yes, Jehovah was both the source of Solomon' royal authority as well as his God.
The same is true of the Lord Jesus Christ. Jehovah is the source of his authority and is also his God (compare Da 7:13,14; Mt 28:18; Php 2:9,10: Rev 3:2,12).
Paul next applies Psalm 102:25-27 to Jesus in the following words, as recorded at Hebrews 1:10-12: You at the beginning, 0 Lord, laid the foundations of the earth itself, and the heavens are the works of your hands. They themselves will perish, but you yourself are to remain continually; and just like an outer garment they will all grow old, and you will wrap them up just as a cloak, as an outer garment; and they will be changed,
but you are the same, and your years will never run out
(emphasis added).
The emphasized portion of the above helps us to appreciate the point Paul is making.
His understanding that God made all things "through" his Son makes the application of this Psalm to Jesus even more appropriate, as was noted earlier. Yet, the thrust of his message is to highlight Jesus' immortality (deathlessness) since his resurrection by God. (Ro 6:9; Ga 1:1)
Jesus will "remain continually," unlike the creation that he was instrumental in bringing forth, which, if left on its own without Jehovah's power to "keep it standing" (Ps 148:1-6), would certainly "perish." 8 God's Son is now "living forever and ever," and his "years will never run out."—Heb 1:12; Rev 1:18; compare Heb 7:16, 25.
Jesus not a god man
Yes, the Lord Jesus, who, while on earth was "made lower than the angels" (which shows that he was not a God-man while on earth), has since his resurrection from the dead been elevated to a "superior position," having become "better than the angels to the extent that he has inherited a name more excellent than theirs." (Php 2:9; Heb 1:4, 2:9)
He is also better in that he is now immortal, thus like his heavenly Father, as expressed in Psalm 102:25-27, which is now also applicable to Christ. Yet, even though he has obtained such a lofty position, he is still not the equal of his Father, Jehovah.—1 Co 11:3.
Jehovah is the "Most High" and Jesus Christ is his only-begotten Son. (Ps 83:18; Lu 1:32; Joh 3:16) Jesus is not identified as Jehovah in Hebrews 1:10-12. Jehovah is his God. The prophets knew this; the apostles knew this; and, more important, Jesus himself knew this.—Mic 5:4; Joh 20:17; Eph 1:3, 17; IPe 1:3; Heb 1:9; Rev 3:2, 12.
The above is ample proof that Trinitarians have been duped by their repective religious leaders, into believing that Jesus is is own Father Jehovah!
They have been mislead by Christendon's leaders who have tried their best, in any way possible to exponge Jehovah's Name from their bible translations.
The Trinitarians I have come across on this BBC board have consistently refused to recognise that the Trinity is just a readjustment of ancient pagan attributes, from Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Greece and Rome!
So, when I come across 'dogmatic' statements like:
"LUR
Yes, Hebrews 1:10-12 contributes towards the understanding that the New Testament identifies Jesus with YHWH. (In fact there are far more verses that do this than perhaps you imagine.)
You want to set this in context. So for context we could start with Hebrews 1:8 in which the Father addresses the Son as "O God". Yes indeed.
This is telling. Remember in John's gospel the Son addressed the Father as "My God" and in Hebrews the Father addresses the Son as "O God". And, for the avoidance of doubt, my understanding is that "O God" is grammatically correct. So that is part of the context for Hebrews 1:10-12. Context as you say is important."
The partial statement from above:
"...This is telling. Remember in John's gospel the Son addressed the Father as "My God" and in Hebrews the Father addresses the Son as "O God"..."
"..."My God"..."O God"
The above has been shown to be way off track contextually, mis-applied, mis-understood and twisted to suit Trinitarian theology and not biblical context (see above Solomon and Christ, Nebudchanezzar and Christ, Ezekiel (son of man) and Christ...).
It can be argued that if Jesus is Jehovah, then so is Solomon, so is Nebudchadnezzar and Ezekiel and others...! What applies to one, must apply to the others...! There are no cases for special Trinitarian pleading!
The Trinity has more akin to Egyptian...Greek and Oriental Philosophy than the Bible.
letusreason
I have taken note of your responses (below). I have focused on the main thrust of the points you make.
"Message 4 - posted by Colinscouser (U5770274) **, Yesterday
LUR
Yes, Hebrews 1:10-12 contributes towards the understanding that the New Testament identifies Jesus with YHWH. (In fact there are far more verses that do this than perhaps you imagine.)
You want to set this in context. So for context we could start with Hebrews 1:8 in which the Father addresses the Son as "O God". Yes indeed.
This is telling. Remember in John's gospel the Son addressed the Father as "My God" and in Hebrews the Father addresses the Son as "O God". And, for the avoidance of doubt, my understanding is that "O God" is grammatically correct. So that is part of the context for Hebrews 1:10-12. Context as you say is important.
[AND HERE IT COMES...]
In a small number of cases, it seems to be likely that a New Testament author is consciously changing the referent of the Old Testament passage from Jehovah . . . to Jesus Christ. . . . In other words, once an Old Testament passage was read as referring to "the Lord," rather than specifically "Jehovah," it was possible to apply what the passage said to Jesus. . . . " (pp. 171-173)"
Reply,
When you quote Prof. BeDuhn saying,
"In a small number of cases, it seems to be likely that a New Testament author is consciously changing the referent of the Old Testament passage from Jehovah . . . to Jesus Christ. . . . In other words, once an Old Testament passage was read as referring to "the Lord," rather than specifically "Jehovah," it was possible to apply what the passage said to Jesus. . . . " (pp. 171-173)"
The reason I posted "Jesus, Jehovah and Psalm 102:25-27 and Hebrews 1:10-12." is because it deals specifically with what you claim Prof. BeDuhn is inferring.
Prof. BeDuhn stops there because he does not want to be involved in theology, but nevertheless, he is giving an opinion "it seems to be" which could be construed as bordering into the field of theology, of which he is trying to keep clear and remain within the bounds of a tranlator
"...In other words, once an Old Testament passage was read as referring to "the Lord," rather than specifically "Jehovah," it was possible to apply what the passage said to Jesus..."
Prof. BeDuhn is on the right track, for the Apostle Paul refers to this "referent...". It could be that Prof. BeDuhn knows what Paul is inferring and he knows what Jehovah's Witnesses are inferring also, but, seeing his present work is about translation issues, he does not wish to be involved in the field of theology and its exegesis.
YHWH-JHVH in the Greek NT
"For a stronger support of this argument there are the words of the professor George Howard, of the University of Georgia (U.S.A.) who observes: "When the Septuagint Version that the New Testament Church used and quoted, contained the Divine Name in Hebrew characters, the writers of the New Testament included without doubt the Tetragrammaton in their quotations". Biblical Archeology Review, March 1978, p.14."
And this is what the NWT does in its NT
"...the writers of the New Testament included without doubt the Tetragrammaton in their quotations". Biblical Archeology Review, March 1978, p.14."
"Consequently several translators of the NT have left the Divine Name in the quotations from the OT made by the New Testament writers. It can be noted, for example the versions of Benjamin Wilson, of Andrè Chouraqui, of Johann Jakob Stolz, of Hermann Heinfetter,in Efik, Ewe, Malgascio and Alghonchin languages."
Prof. BeDuhn may not agree with the NWT translators replacing 'kyrios' (lord) with Jehovah in the NT (in certain parts...), but consider this, would he argue with the many scholars/translators (above and many more...(the above are just a few samples)) who argue otherwise in their respective translations, sevaral of whom I might point out, themselves Trinitarian!
From Greek back to Hebrew
Supposing a student who is fluent in Hebrew and Koine Greek...wanted to translate his Greek NT in to Hebrew. Our student knows that the Greek NT has many direct quotations from the Hebrew OT, which (OT) contained God's name in the form of the Tetragrammaton. Now, in order not to violate the Hebrew text and remain faithful to it, does our student take the Greek word 'Kyrios-lord' and translate it into the Hebrew 'Adonai-lord', in the place where the Hebrew text (from where the quotation is taken from) it has the tetragrammaton? NO! He does not. Our student knows that in the particular place in the Hebrew OT where he wants to put his translation, he cannot justifiably put 'kyrios-lord', because his Hebrew OT does not allow for it as in that place the Tetragram occurs not a surrogate of it, he would be corrupting the text and altering its meaning, resulting in ambiguity (See Ps 110:1 KJV).
Now look at it the other way round. Suppose our budding student wanted to translate the Hebrew OT where the Tetragram appears nearly 7,000 times into Koine Greek, with direct quotations from the Hebrew OT. Would he remain faithful to the Hebrew text when quoting it, or would he alter the quoted text by putting in not the Tetragram, but a substitute? He would, if he wanted to remain faithful to the Hebrew text put into the Greek NT (the quotations from the Hebrew OT) the Tetragram (YHWH-JHVH).
Those who criticize the NWT editors
Those who criticize the NWT editors for inserting the Tetragram-Jehovah into the English NT at the relevant places, seem to miss the point of the above in the illustration of our student. This includes Prof. BeDuhn, but the Prof. does acknowledge that the NWT has a legal right to insert it (Jehovah) in many places, but argues against others. All the NWT editors have done (like other translators) is what our student would have done, in order to remain as faithful as possible to the Hebrew and Greek texts, thus removing any ambiguity as to who is being referred to- is it Jesus or Jehovah, is it Jehovah or is it Jesus. Ps 110:1 in the KJV is a very good example of ambuguity and confusion.
Prof. BeDuhn acknowledges that the OT was interferred with when it came to the Divine Name - Jehovah (p. 170.) 'Truth in Translation, Accuracy and Bias in the English Translations of the New Testament.'
Please read first C&P to your browser (important):
http://www.yhwh-jehovah-inthent.blogspot.com/
Baically as I understand it, you believe Jesus is Jehovah because you think or believe that the NT says he is. Also, you as well as others use Prof. Jason BeDuhn as support for your belief that Jesus is Jehovah!
First it must be noted that when Prof. BeDuhn reached his conclusions regarding the 9 translations he compared, (KJV, NASB, NWT, NAB, NIV, NRSV, TEV, LB and AB) he concluded that the NWT "is one of the most accurate English translations of the NT currently available". And that when it came to the OT regarding God's name 'Jehovah' what were his conclusions?
"In this case, the NW is the only accurate translation of the 9..."
Prof. BeDuhn makes an astute observation (p. 170.) in that the removal of the Tetragrammaton (Jehovah) caused the biblical text to be "modified". This is a polite way of saying that the Hebrew text was corrupted, changed to suit the religious leaders of the day and eventually obscured Jehovah God's name, and made it a crime for even the common people to pronounce God's name (Christendom acts similarly). We believe that the NT suffered the same eventual fate as the OT when it came to God's name. Perhaps the thousands of 'variant' NT readings (manuscripts) also lends credence to this, as many of these manuscripts suffered alterations to suit the theologies of vying sects (the foretold apostasy-Montanists, Donatists, Novatians, Marcionites, Gnostics, Catholics, and many, many more) one and all claiming to be 'Orthodox'. One eventually became the biggest of the groups/parties/sects who eventually had the most members and converts and eventually won out and became the Catholics party. The rest were eventually supressed, persecuted and hunted down with the aid of the political state...
It would seem that Prof. BeDuhn rates the NWT as a very good translation in comparison. He has of course his conditional criticism with the Tetragram (YHWH/JHVH-Jehovah) being in the NWT NT. I use the word 'conditional' because Prof. BeDuhn (even though he has his criticisms) says on page 174:
"If the exact preservation of OT passages when they are quoted in the NT is a principle to which NW editors want to give priority, then the seventyeight verses listed in the table above is where they can put "Jehovah" in their NT text according to that principle".
Prof. BeDuhn may not agree with the NWT "editors" in putting "Jehovah" in all the places they have in the NT, but he recognises their legitamicy in doing so in dozens of places where the NT writers make 'direct' quotes from the OT containing God's name.
Prof. BeDuhn also wonders why the NWT editors have not put the tetrgram in places (NT) where they ought to have a legitimate right to do so!
At the very least Prof. BeDuhn recognises that at least the NWT editors have a legal case for inserting the Tetragram in certain places in the NT, where direct quotes are made from the OT containing God's unique name. Prof. BeDuhn notes in part of his conclusion (p. 176.) that the ambiguous word 'lord' is generic and not only applies to God, but to Jesus and others in the NT.
This generic title 'lord' is ambiguous and leads to confusion as to which 'lord' is being talked about and leaves the reader uncertain as to whom the passage refers. Prof. BeDuhn points out that these are reasonable points, though matters of interpretation, but, non the less, reasonable points.
It must also be pointed out that, although Prof. BeDuhn may criticise the NWT for inserting the tetragrammaton in the NT (in certain places) there are other translators/scholars who would argue against him, and even though these translators works are themselves translations (from the koine Greek in to various languages) they recognise, as do the NWT translators that the NT writers included the Tetragrammaton in their writings.
I'm sure Prof. BeDuhn and others have come across this:
Did the early Christians use the TETRAGRAMMATON in their writtings of the NT?
The Tetragrammaton in the Christian Scriptures according to the Babylonian Talmud.
The first part of this Jewish work is called Shabbath (Sabbath) and it contains an immense code of rules that establishes what could have been done of a Sabbath. Part of it deals with if on the Sabbath day Biblical manuscripts could be saved from the fire, and after it reads:
"The text declares: 'The white spaces ("gilyohnim") and the books of the Minim, can't be saved from the fire'. Rabbi Jose said: 'On working days one must cut out the Divine Names that are contained in the text, hide them and burn the rest'. Rabbi Tarfon said: 'May I bury my son if I don't burn them together with the Divine Names that they contain if I come across them". -From the English translation of Dr. H. Freedman.
The word "Minim" means "sectarians" and according to Dr. Freedman it's very probable that in this passage it indicates the Jewish-Christians. The expression "the white spaces" translates the original "gilyohnim" and could have meant, using the word ironically, that the writings of the "Minim where as worthy as a blank scroll, namely nothing. In some dictionaries this word is given as "Gospels". In harmony with this, the sentence that appears in the Talmud before the above mentioned passage says: "The books of the Minim are like white spaces (gilyohnim)."
So in the book Who was a Jew?, of L.H.Schiffman, the above mentioned passage of the Talmud is translated: "We don't save the Gospels or the books of Minim from the fire. They are burnt where they are, together with their Tetragrammatons. Rabbi Yose Ha-Gelili says: "During the week one should take the Tetragrammatons from them, hide them and burn the rest". Rabbi Tarfon said: 'May I bury my children! If I would have them in my hands, I would burn them with all their Tetragrammatons'". Dr. Schiffman continues reasoning that here "Minim" is referred to Hebrew Christians.
And it's very probable that here the Talmud refers to the Hebrew Christians. It is a supposition that finds agreement among the studious people, and in the Talmud seems to be well supported by the context. In Shabbath the passage that follows the above mentioned quotations relates a story, regarding Gamaliel and Christian judge in which there is an allusion to parts of the Sermon on the Mount. Therefore, this passage of the Talmud is a clear indication that the Christians included the Tetragrammaton in their Gospel and their writings.
Because of all we have said there are valid reasons to assert that the writers of the New Testament reported the Tetragrammaton in their divinely inspired work.
Quote,
"So yes, De Buhn (BeDuhn)supports the view that the New Testament is saying that YHWH is Jesus. As I and others have said before, and de Buhn agrees, the New Testament applies YHWH quotes from the Old Testament to Jesus." (un-quote)
The reply below shows how Trinitarians completely misunderstand and misapply and twist the scriptures.
So does "...the New Testament applies YHWH quotes from the Old Testament to Jesus." meaning that Jesus is actually Jehovah? It also shows that Trinitarians are making Prof. BeDuhn read how they (Trinitarians) want him to read.
The Application of Psalm 102:25-27 to the Son of God at Hebrews 1:10-12
Texts are from the NWT.
The words of Psalm 102:25-27 read:
"Long ago you laid the foundation of the earth itself. And the heavens are the work of your hands. They themselves will perish. but you yourself will keep standing; And just like a garment they will all of them wear out. Just like clothing you will replace them, and they will finish their turn. But you are the same, and your own years will not be completed."
These words are, as the context reveals, directed to the Sovereign Lord, Jehovah God. However, in the New Testament, in Hebrews 1:10-12, Paul applies these words to Jesus Christ.
Because of this, some Trinitarians have concluded that:
1) Jesus is the Creator and 2) he (Jesus) is "Jehovah of the Old Testament," the One to whom these words were originally addressed.
Is this what the author of Hebrews was teaching?
A careful examination of Hebrews 1 as well as other, related verses will reveal the truth of the matter.
Is Jesus the Creator?
It will be shown that in 1 Corinthians 8:6 the apostle Paul makes a careful distinction between the "one God" (the Father) as the one "out of whom all things are," and Jesus Christ as the one "through (di, a contraction of dia) whom" all things came into being.
Hebrews 1 begins by giving reasons why we should "pay more than the usual attention to the things heard" through God's Son. (Heb 2:1; see also, John 7:16, 17; 12:49, 50) In verses 1 and 2 we are told:
"God, who long ago spoke on many occasions and in many ways to our forefathers by means of the prophets, has at the end of these days spoken to us by means of a Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the systems of things."
Seeing things in context
Clearly, then, in context Hebrews 1:10-12 could not be teaching that Jesus is the Creator, for here, in the opening words to the Hebrews, it is clearly stated that God made all things "through" His Son.
Heb. 1:3.
"He is the reflection of [his] glory and the exact representation of his very being, and he sustains all things by the word of his power; and after he had made a purification for our sins he sat down on the right hand of the Majesty in lofty places."
Since Jesus' role in creation has already been discussed in(Heb 1:3), it is not likely that in verses 10-12 the author would return to the same point he has explained earlier. It could be that these verses from Psalm 102 are appropriately applied to the Son of God in view of his being the preexistent Wisdom spoken of in Proverbs 8. There he is described as a "master worker" alongside his Creator, Jehovah.3 (Pr 8:22-31)
*B. W. Bacon acknowledges, "The passage could be made to prove the doctrine that the Messiah is none other than the preexistent Wisdom of Prov 8, 22-31, 'through whom' according to our author [the author of Hebrews], v.2, God 'made the worlds.
* Benjamin Wisner Bacon, "Heb 1.10-12 and the Septuagint Rendering of Ps 102, 23." ZA'W 3 (1902). 285. Compare F. F. Bruce. The Epistle to the Hebrews, Revised Edition (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 63, note 103.
The heavens and the earth as 'the work of Christ's hands?'
It would certainly be appropriate to refer to the heavens and the earth as 'the work of Christ's hands' in a secondary sense in view of his being the mediator/agent of the creative acts of Jehovah God. Indeed, as the "master craftsman" Jesus was very much involved in Jehovah's works. (Pr 8:30, Jerusalem Bible) Still, there seems to be another reason why Paul applies verses 25-27 of the 102nd Psalm to God's beloved Son.
The Immortal Son
Is it to prove that Jesus Christ is 'Jehovah of the Old Testament' that the author of Hebrews makes such an application of Psalm 102?
Again, those who embrace the doctrine of the Trinity would likely answer.
"Yes (say trinitarians), the fact that a verse was originally applied to God, and later applied to Jesus, proves that he is Jehovah of the Old Testament."
Faulty reasoning
Using this type of reasoning one might feel justified in concluding that Solomon was Jesus Christ! Why? Because in the verses just previous to Hebrews 1:10-12 Paul wrote:
"8 But with reference to the Son: “God is your throne forever and ever, and [the] scepter of your kingdom is the scepter of uprightness. 9 You loved righteousness, and you hated lawlessness. That is why God, your God, anointed you with [the] oil of exultation more than your partners.” (Heb. 1:8,9)
As we have already discussed the translation "God is your throne," it is simply being pointed out that these words were originally addressed to Solomon in Psalm 45:6-7, but here in Hebrews 1:8-9 they are applied to the Lord Jesus Christ. The book Reasoning from the Scriptures, page 414, adds more to the point:
Jesus and Solomon
'It should be observed in Hebrews 1:5b that a quotation is made from 2 Samuel 7:14 and applied to the Son of God. Although that text had its first application to Solomon, the later application of it to Jesus Christ does not mean that Solomon and Jesus are the same. Jesus is "greater than Solomon" and carries out a work foreshadowed by Solomon.—Luke 11:31.'
So, when a description/title... is applied to the Father and also, this same description is applied to the son, it does not mean that they are the same person, because of the same description being applied to both! The above demonstrates that!
Nebuchanezzar and Christ
Also the scriptures tell us that Nebuchanezzar is called 'King of kings', but so is Christ, but we would not conclude that Nebudchadnezzar and Christ are the same person because the share the same title...
Ezekiel is called 'son of man', so is Jesus, but we would not say that Ezekiel is Christ because the 'son of man' is applied to both of them!
Concepts and ideas
Paul no more intended to identify Jesus with Jehovah than he intended to identify Solomon with Jesus. He did, however, apply certain concepts and ideas expressed in those verses which were originally applied to Jehovah God and Solomon, to the Son of God.
God is the source
The application of Psalm 45:6-7 to Jesus at Hebrews 1:8-9 shows that God is the source of Jesus' royal office and authority. Because Jesus "loved righteousness and hated lawlessness," Jehovah "anointed him with the oil of exultation."
Jehovah was both the source of:
Paul's words are, "God, your God (God of you)," when referring to the One who anointed Jesus. Yes, Jehovah was both the source of Solomon' royal authority as well as his God.
The same is true of the Lord Jesus Christ. Jehovah is the source of his authority and is also his God (compare Da 7:13,14; Mt 28:18; Php 2:9,10: Rev 3:2,12).
Paul next applies Psalm 102:25-27 to Jesus in the following words, as recorded at Hebrews 1:10-12: You at the beginning, 0 Lord, laid the foundations of the earth itself, and the heavens are the works of your hands. They themselves will perish, but you yourself are to remain continually; and just like an outer garment they will all grow old, and you will wrap them up just as a cloak, as an outer garment; and they will be changed,
but you are the same, and your years will never run out
(emphasis added).
The emphasized portion of the above helps us to appreciate the point Paul is making.
His understanding that God made all things "through" his Son makes the application of this Psalm to Jesus even more appropriate, as was noted earlier. Yet, the thrust of his message is to highlight Jesus' immortality (deathlessness) since his resurrection by God. (Ro 6:9; Ga 1:1)
Jesus will "remain continually," unlike the creation that he was instrumental in bringing forth, which, if left on its own without Jehovah's power to "keep it standing" (Ps 148:1-6), would certainly "perish." 8 God's Son is now "living forever and ever," and his "years will never run out."—Heb 1:12; Rev 1:18; compare Heb 7:16, 25.
Jesus not a god man
Yes, the Lord Jesus, who, while on earth was "made lower than the angels" (which shows that he was not a God-man while on earth), has since his resurrection from the dead been elevated to a "superior position," having become "better than the angels to the extent that he has inherited a name more excellent than theirs." (Php 2:9; Heb 1:4, 2:9)
He is also better in that he is now immortal, thus like his heavenly Father, as expressed in Psalm 102:25-27, which is now also applicable to Christ. Yet, even though he has obtained such a lofty position, he is still not the equal of his Father, Jehovah.—1 Co 11:3.
Jehovah is the "Most High" and Jesus Christ is his only-begotten Son. (Ps 83:18; Lu 1:32; Joh 3:16) Jesus is not identified as Jehovah in Hebrews 1:10-12. Jehovah is his God. The prophets knew this; the apostles knew this; and, more important, Jesus himself knew this.—Mic 5:4; Joh 20:17; Eph 1:3, 17; IPe 1:3; Heb 1:9; Rev 3:2, 12.
The above is ample proof that Trinitarians have been duped by their repective religious leaders, into believing that Jesus is is own Father Jehovah!
They have been mislead by Christendon's leaders who have tried their best, in any way possible to exponge Jehovah's Name from their bible translations.
The Trinitarians I have come across on this BBC board have consistently refused to recognise that the Trinity is just a readjustment of ancient pagan attributes, from Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Greece and Rome!
So, when I come across 'dogmatic' statements like:
"LUR
Yes, Hebrews 1:10-12 contributes towards the understanding that the New Testament identifies Jesus with YHWH. (In fact there are far more verses that do this than perhaps you imagine.)
You want to set this in context. So for context we could start with Hebrews 1:8 in which the Father addresses the Son as "O God". Yes indeed.
This is telling. Remember in John's gospel the Son addressed the Father as "My God" and in Hebrews the Father addresses the Son as "O God". And, for the avoidance of doubt, my understanding is that "O God" is grammatically correct. So that is part of the context for Hebrews 1:10-12. Context as you say is important."
The partial statement from above:
"...This is telling. Remember in John's gospel the Son addressed the Father as "My God" and in Hebrews the Father addresses the Son as "O God"..."
"..."My God"..."O God"
The above has been shown to be way off track contextually, mis-applied, mis-understood and twisted to suit Trinitarian theology and not biblical context (see above Solomon and Christ, Nebudchanezzar and Christ, Ezekiel (son of man) and Christ...).
It can be argued that if Jesus is Jehovah, then so is Solomon, so is Nebudchadnezzar and Ezekiel and others...! What applies to one, must apply to the others...! There are no cases for special Trinitarian pleading!
The Trinity has more akin to Egyptian...Greek and Oriental Philosophy than the Bible.
letusreason
The STAUROS of the New Testament: Cross or Stake?
The STAUROS of the New Testament: Cross or Stake?
This page will address the following questions:
What was its form in the case of Jesus Christ? Was it a two-beamed cross or a simple upright stake?
Was wood scarce in and around Jerusalem at the time and does this have any bearing on what method the Romans used in Jesus' case?
What does the Greek word mean?
Are there scriptures that 'point' to its form?
What weight should be given to post-N.T christian writers?
Can archaeological findings, such as supposed 1st century christian inscriptions, be of help?
Has the New World Translation's choice been critiqued fairly?
Is the New World Translation alone in its preferred rendering?
Whatever form it was should we have it as a symbol in our places of worship or cherish, hold as dear, the implement of Christ's death?
The word "stauros" occurs 27 times in the Christian Greek Scriptures(the 'New Testament'). This word has been consistently translated in the New World Translation as "torture stake" and never as "cross". It is the implement on which Jesus Christ was afixed and executed. Also, another Greek word was used by the Bible writers "xylon", as the same implement of execution in regard to Jesus, which denotes, "wood, a piece of wood, anything made of wood..."-Vine. At those places where "xylon" is used in connection with Jesus' execution the New World Translation has rendered it as "stake". Is there any justification for the New World Translation to do this with these Greek words?
Vines Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words says:
"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. The shape of the latter had it's origin in ancient Chaldea, and was used of the symbol of of the god Tammaz(being in the shape of the mystic Tau, the initial of his name in that country and adjacent lands, including Egypt. By the middle of the 3rd cent. A.D. the churches had either departed from, or had travestied, certain doctrines of the Christian faith. In order to increase the prestige of the apostate ecclesiastical system pagans were received into the churches apart from regeneration of faith, and were permitted largely to retain their pagan signs and symbols. Hence the Tau or T, in it's most frequent form, with the cross-piece lowered, was adopted to stand for the cross of Christ"
The Classic Greek Dictionary, Greek-English and English-Greek, With an Appendix of Proper and Geographical Names prepared by George Ricker Berry reads:
Under "stauros": "..an upright pale, stake or pole; in plu. a palisade. II. the Cross.(p.648). Although this lexicon seems to give "the Cross" as a meaning for "stauros" it seems rather as a reference than a meaning("the Cross" rather than "a cross")and to that of Jesus Christ. Hence definition II is somewhat 'suspect' and may only reflect the lexicons belief that the stauros in the NT was cross-shaped or it may be giving it as a reference, that is, that when we read in the English Bibles "cross" this is from the Greek stauros and no indication it was actually cross-shaped. In its definition 1 though there is no doubt the meaning of stauros and anything other than that stauros meant more than one piece of wood, whether it was a "pale, stake or pole" is not mentioned and certainly none of which were 'cross-shaped.' This is its meaning in all the Greek classics such as Homer. There is no evidence that the from or shape of the stauros in Jesus Christ's case was any different.
Vines Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words has under the word Tree:
"2.XULON.....(b) of the Cross, the tree being the stauros, the upright pale or stake to which the Romans nailed those who were to be executed, Acts 5:30; 10:39; 13:29; Gal.3:13; 1 Pet.2:24;"
According to a Greek-English lexicon by Liddell and Scott, this word means "Wood cut and ready for use, firewood, timber, etc. . . . piece of wood, log, beam, post . . . cudgel, club . . . stake on which criminals were impaled . . . of live wood, tree." "wood . . . " Hence in the Authorized Version/King James Version this word is rendered as "tree" at Acts 5:30. The Complete Jewish Bible by D. Stern has here "stake." See also Acts 13:29; Galatians 3:13; 1 Peter 2:24.
In agreement with the above is that which Dr Jason BeDuhn has written(a private letter written to us and published with his permission) when asked what he thought of the New World Translation's rendering of the word "stauros":
"On "torture stake," again, I think that the NWT is a bit heavy handed in trying to make a point. Certainly "stake" would be sufficient, and more desirable. The JW's are trying to shock Christians away from their devotion to the cross. It is, after all, an instrument of execution. They are right that STAUROS does not necessarily mean the cross form as Christianity has thought of it. It can be just a plain stake in the ground to which someone is nailed. But I think "torture" is too much and misses the point: it is meant to be a form of execution and not torture.
Also, the Companion Bible in it's Appendix 162 remarks:
"In the Greek N.T. two words are used for "the cross", on which the Lord was put to death.1. The word stauros; which denotes an upright pale or stake, to which the criminals were nailed for execution. 2. The word xulon, which generally denotes a piece of a dead log of wood, or timber, for fuel or for any other purpose. It is not like dendron, which is used of a living, or green tree, as in Matt.21: 8; Rev.7: 1, 3; 8:7; 9: 4, &c. As this latter word xulon is used for the former stauros it shows us the meaning of each is exactly the same. The verb stauroo means to drive stakes. Our English word "cross" is the translation of the Latin crux; but the Greek stauros no more means a crux than the word "stick" means a "crutch". Homer uses the word stauros of an ordinary pole or stake, or a simple piece of timber.[ftnote, Iliad xxiv.453. Odyssey xiv.11] And this is the meaning and usage of the word throughout the Greek classics.[ftnote, eg.Thucydides iv.90. Xenophon, Anabasis v.2.21] It never means two pieces of timber placed across one another at any angle, but of always one piece alone. Hence the use of the word xulon(No.2 above)in connection with the manner of our Lord's death and rendered "tree" in Acts 5:30; 10:39; 13:29; Gal.3:13, 1 Pet.2:24. This is preserved in our old English name rood or rod. See Encycl.Brit., 11th (Camb)ed., vol.7, p.505d. There is nothing in the Greek of the N.T. even to imply two pieces of timber."
A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament, p819. E.W.Bullinger states:
"Used here[cross] for the stauros on which Jesus was crucified. Both words[stauros, xylon]disagree with the modern idea of a cross, with which we have become familiarized by pictures. The stauros was simply an upright pale or stake to which the Romans nailed those who were thus said to be crucified. Stauroo[the verb], merely to drive stakes. It never means two pieces of wood joining each other at any angle. Even the Latin word crux means a mere stake."
The Concordant Literal New Testament with the Keyword Concordance states:
"stauros STANDer: cross, an upright stake or pole, without any crosspiece, now, popularly, cross..."
also
"stauroo cause-STAND, crucify, drive a stake into the ground, fasten on a stake, impale, now by popular usage, crucify, though there was no crosspiece."- pp. 63, 64, Greek-English Keyword Concordance, Concordant Publishing Concern, 1983, 3rd printing of 6th edition of 1976.
The Anchor Bible Dictionary says about crucifixion:
"The act of nailing or binding a living victim or sometimes a dead person to a cross or stake(stauros or skolops) or a tree(xylon)...Under the Roman Empire, crucifixion normally included a flogging beforehand. At times the cross was only one vertical stake. Frequently, however, there was a cross-piece attached..."- Volume 1, pp.1207, 1208
The book Dual Heritage-The Bible and the British Museum states:
“It may come as a shock to know that there is no word such as ‘cross’ in the Greek of the New Testament. The word translated ‘cross’ is always the Greek word [stauros] meaning a ‘stake’ or ‘upright pale.’ The cross was not originally a Christian symbol; it is derived from Egypt and Constantine.”
To read what an issue of The Watchtower magazine wrote in 1950 when the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures was published see here.
Also, the following work is worth quoting from at length(and it is long), it being:
The Non-Christian Cross, An Enquiry into the Origin and History of the Symbol Eventually Adopted as that of our Religion,
by John Denham Parsons:
"In the thousand and one works supplied for our information upon matters connected with the history of our race, we are told that Alexander the Great, Titus,and various Greek, Roman,and Oriental rulers of ancient days, "crucified" this or that person; or that they "crucified" so many at once, or during their reign. And the instrument of execution is called a "cross."
The natural result is that we imagine that all the people said to have been "crucified" were executed by being nailed or otherwise affixed to a cross-shaped instrument set in the ground, like that to be seen in our fanciful illustrations of the execution of Jesus.
This was, however, by no means necessarily the case.
For instance, the death spoken of, death by the stauros, included transfixion by a pointed stauros or stake, as well as affixion to an unpointed stauros or stake; and the latter punishment was not always that referred to.
It is also probable that in most of the many cases where we have no clue as to which kind of stauros was used, the cause of the condemned one's death was transfixion by a pointed stauros. Moreover, even if we could prove that this very common mode of capital punishment was in no case that referred to by the historians who lived in bygone ages, and that death was in each instance caused by affixion to, instead of transfixion by, a stauros, we would still have to prove that each stauros had a cross-bar before we could correctly describe the death caused by it as death by crucifixion.
It is also, upon the face of it, somewhat unlikely that the ancients would in every instance in which they despatched a man by affixing him to a post sat in the ground, have gone out of their way to provide the artistic but quite unecessary cross-bar of our imagination.
As it is, in any case, well known that the Romans very often despatched those condemned to death by affixing them to a stake or post which had no cross-bar, the question arises as to what proof we have that a cross-bar was used in the case of Jesus...
What the ancients used to signify when they used the word stauros , can easily be seen by referring to either the Iliad or the Odyssey...
The stauros used as an instrument of execution was (1)a small pointed pole or stake used for thrusting through the body, so as to pin the latter to the earth, or otherwise render death inevitable; (2)a similar pole or stake fixed in the ground point upwards, upon which the condemned one was forced down till incapable of escaping; (3)a much longer and stouter pole or stake fixed point upwards, upon which the victim, with his hands tied behind him, was lodged in such a way that the point should enter his breast and the weight of the body cause every movement to hasten the end; and (4)a stout unpointed pole or stake set upright in the earth, from which the victim was suspended by a rope round his wrists, which were first tied behind him so that the position might become an agonising one; or to which the doomed one was bound, or ,in the case of Jesus, nailed.
That this last named kind of stauros, which was admittedly that to which Jesus was affixed, had in every case a cross-bar attached is untrue; that it had in most cases is unlikely; that it had in the case of Jesus,is unproven.
Even as late as the Middle Ages, the word stauros seems to have primarily signified a straight piece of wood without a cross-bar. For the famous Greek lexicographer, Suidas, expressly states, "Stauroi; ortha xula peregota," and both Eustathius and Hesychius affirm that it meant a straight stake or pole.
The side light thrown upon the question by Lucian is also worth noting. The writer, referring to Jesus, alludes to "That sophist of theirs who was fastened to a skolops;" which word signified a single piece of wood, and not two pieces joined together.
Only a passing notice need be given to the fact that in some of the Epistles of the New Testament,which seem to have been written before the Gospels,though,like the other Epistles,misleadingly placed after the gospels, Jesus is said to have been hanged upon a tree.....the word translated "tree," though that always used in referring to what is translated as the "Tree of Life," signified not only "tree" but also "wood."
It should be noted, however, that these five references of the Bible to the execution of Jesus as having been carried out by his suspension upon a tree or a piece of timber set in the ground, in no wise convey the impression that two pieces of wood nailed together in the form of a cross is what is referred to.
Moreover, there is not, even in the Greek text of the Gospels, a single intimation in the Bible to the effect that the instrument actually used in the case of Jesus was cross-shaped.
Had there been any such intimation in the twenty-seven Greek works referring to Jesus, which our Church selected out of a very large number and called the "New Testament," the Greek letter chi, which was cross-shaped, would in the ordinary course have been referred to; and some such term as Kata chiasmon, "like a chi," made use of.
It should also be borne in mind that though the Christians of the first three centuries certainly made use of a transient sign of the cross in the non-Mosaic initiatory rite of baptism and at other times, it is, as will be shown in the next two chapters, admitted that they dlid not use or venerate it as a representation of the instrument of execution upon which Jesus died. Moreover, if in reply to the foregoing it should be argued that as it is well known that cross-shaped figures of wood, and other representations of the sign or figure of the cross, were not venerated by Christians until after the fateful day when Constantine set out at the head of thle soldiers of Gaul in his famous march against Rome ; and that the Christian crosses of the remainder of the fourth century were representations of the instrument of execution upon which Jesus died; a dozen other objections present themselves if we are honest enough to face the fact that we have to show that they were so from the first. For the Gauls, and therefore the soldiers of Gaul, venerated as symbols of the Sun-God and Giver of Life and Victory the cross of four equal arms, + or X , and the solar wheel, while the so-called cross which Constantine and his troops are said to have seen above the midday sun was admittedly the monogram of Christ, , which was admittedly an adaptation of the solar wheel, as will be shown further on ; and it was as tokens of the conquest of Rome by his Gaulish troops, that Constantine, as their leader, erected one of these symbols in the centre of the Eternal City, and afterwards placed upon his coins the crosses.......the cross of four equal arms X, and several variations of that other cross of four equal arms, the right-angled +. And it was not till long after these crosses were accepted as Christian, and Constantine was dead and buried, that the cross with one of its arms longer than the other three (or two), which alone could be a representation of an instrument of execution, was made use of by Christians.
Another point to be remembered is that when Constantine, apparently conceiving ours, as the only non-national religion with ramifications throughout his world-wide dominions, to be the only one that could weld together the many nations which acknowlcdged his sway, established Christianity as the State Religion of the Roman Empire, the Church to which we belong would naturally have had to accept as its own the symbols which Constantine had caused to be those of the State in question. And it should be added that the cross of later days with one of its arms longer than the others, if not also the assumption that the stauros to which Jesus was affixed had a cross-bar, may have been merely the outcome of a wish to associate with the story of Jesus these Gaulish symbols of victory which had become symbols of the Roman State, and therefore of its State Church.
Anyway, the first kind of cross venerated by Christians was not a representation of an instrument of execution ; and the fact that we hold sacred many different kinds of crosses, although even if we could prove that the stauros to which Jesus was affixed had a cross-bar but one kind could be a representation of that instrument of execution, has to be accounted for.
Our only plausible explanation of the fact that we hold sacred almost any species of cross is that, as we do not know what kind of cross Jesus died upon, opinions have always differed as to which was the real cross.
This difference of opinion among Christians as to the shape of the instrument upon which Jesus was executed, has certainly existed for many centuries. But as an explanation of the many different kinds of crosses accepted by us as symbols of Christ, it only lands us in a greater difficulty. For if we did not know what kindof cross Jesus died upon when we accepted the cross as our symbol, the chances obviously are that we accepted the cross as our symbol for some other reason than that we assert. As a mattter of fact our position regarding the whole matter is illogical and unsatisfactory, and we ought to alter it by honestly facing the facts that we cannot satisfactorily prove that our symbol was adopted as a representation of the instrument of execution to which Jesus, was affixed, and that we do not even know for certain that the instrument in question was cross-shaped.
It need only be added that 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 of one piece of timber, but of two pieces nailed together in the form of a cross.
Taking the whole of the foregoing facts into consideration, it will be seen that it is not a little misleading upon the part of our teachers to translate the word stauros as "cross" when rendering the Greek documents of the Church into our native tongue, and to support that action by putting "cross" in our lexicons as the meaning of stauros without carefully explaining that that was at any rate not the primary meaning of the word in the days of the Apostles, did not become its primary signification till long afterwards, and became so then, if at all, only because, despite the absence of corroborative evidence, it was assumed that the particular stauros upon which Jesus was executed had that particular shape.
But-the reader may object-how about the Greek word which in our Bibles is translated as "crucify" or "crucified?" Does not that mean "fix to a cross" or "fixed to a cross?" And what is this but the strongest possible corroboration of our assertion as Christians that Jesus was executed upon a cross-shaped instrument?
The answer is that no less than four different Greek words are translated in our Bibles as meaning "crucify" or "crucified," and that not one of the four meant "crucify" or "crucified."
The four words in question are the words prospegnumi, anastauroo, sustauroo, and stauroo.
"The word prospegnumi, though translated in our Bibles as "crucify" or "crucified," meant to "fix" to or upon, and meant that only. It had no special reference to the affixing of condemned persons either to a stake, pale, or post, or to a tree, or to a cross; and had no more reference to a cross than the English word "fix" has.
The word anastauroo was never used by the old Greek writers as meaning other than to impale upon or with a single piece of timber.
The word sustauroo does not occur in pre-Christian writings, and only five times in the Bible against the forty-four times of the next word to be dealt with. Being obviously derived in part from the word stauros, which primarily signified a stake or pale which was a single piece of wood and had no cross-bar, sustauroo evidently meant affixion to such a stake or pale. Anyhow there is nothing whatever either in the derivation of the word, or in the context in either of the five instances in which it occurs, to show that what is referred to is affixion to something that was cross-shaped.
The word stauroo occurs, as has been said, forty four times; and of the four word in question by far the most frequently. The meaning of this word is therefore of special importance. It is consequently most significant to find, as we do upon investigation, that wherever it occurs in the pre-Christian classics it is used as meaning to impalisade, or stake, or affix to a pale or stake; and has reference, not to crosses, but to single pieces of wood.
It seems therefore tolerably clear (1) that the sacred writngs forming the New testament, to the statements of which-as translated for us-we bow down in reverence, do not tell us that Jesus was affixed to a cross-shaped instrument of execution; (2) that the balance of evidence is against the truth of our statements to the effect that the instrument in question was cross-shaped, and our sacred symbol originally a representation of the same; and (3) that we Christians have in bygone days acted, alas! still act, anything but ingenuously in regard to the symbol of the cross.
This is not all, however. For if the unfortunate fact that we have in our zeal almost manufactured evidence in favour of the theory that our cross or crosses had it's or their origin in the shape of the instrument of execution to which Jesus was affixed proves anything at all, it proves the need for a work which, like the present one, sets in array the evidence available regarding both the pre-Christian cross and the adoption in later times of a similar symbol as that of the catholic faith."
Nor should it be forgotten that the triumph of Christianity was due to the fact that it was a " catholic " faith, and not, like the other faiths followed by the subjects of Rome, and like what Jesus seems to have intended the results of His mission to have been inasmuch as He solemnly declared that he was sent to the lost sheep of the House of Israel and to them alone, the monopoly of a single nation or race. For if Paul, taking his and other visions of Jesus as the long-needed proofs of a future life, had not disregarded the very plain intimations of Jesus to the effect that His mission was to the descendants of Jacob or Israel, and to them alone; if Paul had not withstood Christ's representative, Peter, to the face, and, with unsurpassed zeal, carried out his grand project of proclaiming a non-national and universal religion founded upon appearances of the spirit-form of Jesus, what we call Christianity would not have come into existence.
The fact that but for Paul there would have been no catholic faith with followers in every land ruled by Constantine when sole emperor, for that astute monarch to establish as the State Religion of his loosely knit empire, because, on account of its catholicity, that best fitted to hold power as the official faith of a government with world-wide do minions , is worthy of a lasting place in our memory.
Nor is the noteworthy fact last mentioned unconnected with the symbol of the cross. For, as will be shown, it is clear that it was because Constantine caused the figure of the cross to become a recognized symbol of his catholic empire, that it became recognised as a symbol of the Catholic faith.
Not till after Constantine...
Not till after Constantine and his Gaulish warriors planted what Eusebius the Bishop of Caesarea and other Christians of the century in question describe as a cross, within the walls of the Eternal City as the symbol of their victory, did Christians ever set on high a cross-shaped trophy of any description.
Moreover, but for the fact that, as it happened the triumph of Constantine resulted in that of the Christian Church, we should probably have deemed the cross, if to our minds a representation of the instrument of execution to which Jesus was affixed, as anything but the symbol of Victory we now deem it.
This is evident from the fact that the so-called cross of Jesus admittedly fulfilled the purpose for which it was erected at the request of those who sought the death of Jesus. And even according to our Gospels the darkness of defeat over shadowed the scene at Calvary.
To put the matter plainly, the victory of Jesus was not a victory over the cross ; for He did not come down from the cross. Nor was it a victory over His enemies ; for what they sought was to get rid of a man whom they deemed an agitator, and their wish was gratified, inasmuch as, thanks to the cross, He troubled them no more.
In other words the victory which we ascribe to Jesus did not occur during the gloom which hung like a pall over his native land at the time of His execution, but upon the then approaching Sun-day of the Vernal Equinox, at the coming of the glory of the dawn. For the victory in question, from whatever point of view we may look at it, was not the avoidance of defeat, but its retrieval. And its story is an illustration of the old-world promise, hoary with antiquity and founded upon the coming, ushered in every year by the Pass-over or cross-over of the equator by the sun at the Vernal Equinox, of the bounteous harvests of summer after the dearth of devastating winter ; bidding us ever hope, not indeed for the avoidance of death and therefore of defeat, but for such victory as may happen to lay in survival or resurrection.
It is therefore clear that even if we could prove that the instrument of execution to which Jesus was affixed was cross-shaped, it would not necessarily follow that it was as the representation of the cause of His death which we now deem it, that the figure of the cross became our symbol of Life and Victory.
In any case honesty demands that we should no longer translate as "cross" a word which at the time our Gospels were written did not necessarily signify something cross-shaped. And it is equally incumbant upon us, from a moral point of view, that we should cease to render as "crucify" or "crucified" words which never bore any such meaning."
For Chapter II of Parson's book "The evidence of Minucius Felix" see here.
Chapter III "The evidence of the Other Fathers" here
Chapter IV "Curious statements of Irenaeus" here
Chapter V "Origin of the Pre-Christian Cross" here
Chapter VI "Origin of the Christian Cross" here
Chapters VII, VIII, XV, XVI AND XVII of The Non-Christian Cross see here
You may also like to read:
'Is the Cross for Christians?' -The Watchtower, August 15th, 1987, pp21-24; 'Where Were His Legs?' - ibid, pp. 28, 29.
The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, Reference Edition, 1984, Appendix 5C, pp. 1577-78.
The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures, 1985 ed.(WTB&TS), Appendix 3C, pp. 1149-1151
Insight on the Scriptures-'Impalement', Vol.1, pp.1190-1192.(WTB&TS)
"Also, they posted above his head the charge against him, in writing: "This is Jesus the King of the Jews.""(Matt.27:37)
-How Jesus may have been impaled* upon the stauros as pictured in an issue of The Watchtower August 15th 1987 p.24 (WatchTower Bible &Tract Society) Please note the above account of where the titulus(John 19:19 TITLON) was said to be placed was "above his head." As we can see, from the artist's drawing of Jesus' possible position on the stake on the left, anyone trying to employ this account against Jesus being executed upon an upright stake is employing a very weak arguement indeed!
Also, the WTS artist's depiction shows only one nail that fastens both arms of Jesus to the stake. But the WTS are not being dogmatic about how many nails were used in regard to the arms.Two could have been used. Please see further down regarding this.
The crux simplex
The crux simplex as illustrated by the Roman Catholic scholar Justus Lipsius in his book De Cruce Libri Tres. Interestingly, The Expositor's Greek Testament remarks: "Many questions on which there has been much discussion suggest themselves e.g., as to the structure and form of the cross: did it consist of an upright beam(palus, stipes)and a cross beam(patibulum, antenna), or of the former only, the hands being nailed to the beam above the head?(so Fulda, Das Kreus und die Kreusigung, 1878). Was Christ's cross a crux commissa(T) or a crux immissa(t)? Or is this distinction a purely imaginery one, as Fulda(p. 126) maintains against Justus Lipsius, till Fulda the great authority on the subject of crucifixion? The work of the more recent writer should certainly be consulted before coming to a final decision of the form of the cross or the method of crucifixion.."-Vol.1, p.328, 329.
It was only in 1936 in the book "Riches," again by J.F.Rutherford, that first made clear to Jehovah's Witnesses the fact that Jesus was not executed on a cross but on a stake. Afterwards, in the WTB&TS's literature the artists drawings of how Jesus may have died always picture him upon the stake.
In the first edition of the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures of 1950 an appendix clearly shows the felicitousness of translating the Greek word "stauros" as "torture stake" and not "cross."
The Cross and Crucifixion by Herman Fulda
Interestingly the appendix quotes the book The Cross and Crucifixion by Herman Fulda, Breslau, Germany, 1878 which said in part: "Trees were not everywhere available at the places chosen for the public execution. So a simple beam was sunk into the ground. On this outlaws, with hands raised upwards and often also with their feet, were bound or nailed....This simple cross was the oldest instrument erected by human hand for punishment with crucifixion; and because of it's very simplicity it has maintained itself in this form alongside its somewhat more artificial double down to the end." He concludes with the case of Jesus that he "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."-pp 156,339
Regarding the English word "impale"
Regarding the English word "impale"as used in the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures. It is from the French "empaler" which derives from Medieval Latin "impalere," from the Latin "in"-on + "palus"- stake, pole. Hence dictionaries define this word as "to pierce through with, or fix on, something pointed; transfix" and "to punish or torture by fixing on a stake." Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible states: "4717. STAUROW... to impale on the cross;...."
Hence, to use the word "impale" in the N.T. to describe how Jesus was fixed upon the stake is quite proper.
On a web site that addresses the use of the Kingdom Interlinear Translation's appendix on the the Greek word stauros rendered as "torture stake" in the New World Translation we find these comments:
"In the 1950 and 1969 editions of the New World Translation (in their appendix), the WT reproduces one of sixteen woodcut illustrations by the 16th century writer Justus Lipsius, who authored a work called De Cruce Liber Primus, Secundus and Tres. They reproduce his picture of a man impaled on an upright stake, failing to mention that Lipsius produced fifteen other illustrations (most of which picture various crucifixions on crosses). The WT makes the statement: "This is the manner in which Jesus was impaled" and a bit further on "The most amazing thing of all is that the WT could make a statement such as "evidence is completely lacking" that Jesus was crucified on a cross, when the VERY BOOK they use as "proof" to support their claims SAYS JESUS DIED ON A CROSS! One of the woodcuts of Lipsius not mentioned by the WT, shows a crucifixion on a cross. A partial translation of the Latin text alongside this woodcut says: In the Lord's cross there were four pieces of wood, the upright beam, the crossbar, a tree trunk (piece of wood) placed below, and the title (inscription) placed above. Also they hand down (this account by) Irenaeus: "The construction of the cross has five ends, two on the vertical and two on the horizontal, and one in the middle where the person attached with nails rested." (De Cruce Liber Secundus, pg. 661) The earlier (1950 and 1969) editions of the NWT, after referring to Lipsius' picture of a man on an upright stake stated, "This is the manner in which Jesus was impaled." They thereby attempted to convey the idea that Lipsius' book was proving their point. Since then the exposure of their dishonesty induced them to leave this statement out of the 1984 and 1985 versions of the NWT; but they STILL use Lipsius' illustration to make their point, while failing to tell the real story! They are intentionally avoiding the truth."
Several simple if serious errors
However the above makes several simple if serious errors in their allegations of impropriety with the above named WTB&TS publications articles. The fact is that Lipsius' woodcut illustration was not used as "proof" that the stauros which Jesus Christ was executed upon was a simple up-right stake! The 1950 NWT and the 1969 KIT just used this illustration to show that the crux simplex, Latin for a simple upright stake, was one method used, other than its artificial doubles with two-pieces of wood placed at a right angle to each other and hence this illustration serves the intent of the appendix article in simply showing what the victim would have looked like on such an implement. That the above WTB&TS publications "fail to mention that Lipsius produced fifteen other illustrations (most of which picture various crucifixions on crosses)" supposes that the publications appendices had to do so, that is, inform its readers that this was so. But why would they have to do this if the publications were only using Lipsius' illustration of a victim on a simple upright stake, a "crux simplex" and to illustrate this and nothing more!!! Of course they would not have to do so. What Lipsius thought the stauros' shape was in the case of Jesus was not based on anything other than tradition and as the The Expositor's Greek Testament remarks(which we will quote once more): "Many questions on which there has been much discussion suggest themselves e.g., as to the structure and form of the cross: did it consist of an upright beam(palus, stipes)and a cross beam(patibulum, antenna), or of the former only, the hands being nailed to the beam above the head?(so Fulda, Das Kreus und die Kreusigung, 1878). Was Christ's cross a crux commissa(T) or a crux immissa(t)? Or is this distinction a purely imaginery one, as Fulda(p. 126) maintains against Justus Lipsius, till Fulda the great authority on the subject of crucifixion? The work of the more recent writer should certainly be consulted before coming to a final decision of the form of the cross or the method of crucifixion.."-Vol.1, p.328, 329. Fulda also in his work has plates showing the differing shapes and methods impalement upon a stauros could take place. And Fulda, the "more recent writer" is against Lipsius on what shape it took in Christ's case and it is Fulda whom the WTB&TS publications quote in some length in support of translating the Greek word as "torture stake" rather than as "cross." The above accusations toward the WTB&TS publications appendices then are found to be wholly dishonest and deceptive"
Also one should also consider
Also one should also consider that wood at that time and place was scarce. Indeed, where the wood for execution was scarce there would be an economical reason to use only one piece of wood at times and this was so in the eastern parts of the Roman Empire. That one piece of wood would have been a simple stake, a stauros, that, at times, the malefactor was made to carry to the site of his execution and hung upon with hands above his head and would have been re-used time and again not being left in the ground to be attacked by the weather and wood boring insects. The fact that in places where wood was abundant the Romans at times, but not necessarily always, used two pieces, one called in latin a patibulum, the wood that served as a cross-piece and the stipes, the wood that served us the upright that was in/sunk into the ground would not be agreeable to the fact that wood was indeed scarce in the eastern provinces of the Roman Empire, such as Jerusalem was, as the stipes would have been attacked by the weather and insects such as the wasp if it was left out at all times. As the New Testament account is wholly silent on there being two pieces of wood, indeed, only ever mentioning one piece, then this, the scarcity of wood in Jerusalem actually argues against there being two pieces but for the simplest form of one piece, the single stake to be sunk into the ground after the malefactor had been affixed to it by either nails or rope. The New Testament account of Jesus' execution fits this extremely well, so well, that one wonders why any would contend otherwise lest they have a mis-directed devotion to the traditional two beamed cross for Jesus.
A burial cave at Giv'at ha-Mivtar
In 1968 there was discovered in a burial cave at Giv'at ha-Mivtar the remains of a male that had been executed during the Roman period. This has been the only anthropological evidence of the practice of "cricifixion" or "impalement on a stake." The original report on this find aroused much scholarly interest. However, due to the pressure of certain religous authorities, the analysis of the remains, by Professor Nico Haas and his medical team, were hurried and succeeding articles were published on these. One, by a Vassilios Tzaferis, the excavator of the man, based on this teams findings, attemping to show what the position the man died on the implement of execution.
A re-evaluation has since been carried out. I have often met with some that say that this find shows that Jesus met his death on a cross.The man's remains, however, do not offer any such proof of this. For two reasons.(1) This man may not have been executed upon a cross, as some suppose it definitely was the case. He may well have died on a simple stake.The reason why some suppose that this man was executed upon a cross is partly based on Professor Haas' original appraisal and articles published since then based on them. Since then, inconsistencies have been found, amounting to a re-evaluation in certain respects.
(2)Even though this man may have, yet there is no proof of this, as has been said, died on a cross-shaped implement, how would this show that the shape of Jesus' "stauros" was also cross-shaped when the available evidence in his, Jesus' case, points toward a simple upright stake?
The re-evaluation was carried out by Joseph Zias of the Department of Antiquities and Museums, Israel and Eliezer Sekeles of the Hebrew University-Hadassah Medical School, Jerusalem. A good place to read their re-appraisal is the six page article in the Israel Exploration Journal, Vol.25, pp22-27, The Crucified Man from Giv'at ha-Mitvar:A Reappraisal.Dr Zias has himself stated regarding this find and what light it sheds, or rather, does not shed, upon how Jesus was crucified: "...my research on the case from Jerusalem does not in my opinion, shed any light as to how Jesus was crucified. All the NT says is that he [Jesus]was crucified, not how..."-(private e-mail correspondence).
This reappraisal affected many of the conclusions that had been made about the man's position during "crucifixion." On p.27 there is a diagram: "Proposed new reconstruction of the position of crucifixion," where you can see a man whose feet are each affixed to the upright with nails. The diagram also show the arms tied to another piece of wood forming a cross beam. (This diagram was re-produced in the article, "Where Were His Legs," in the Watchtower cited above) But it is not to be supposed from this that there was any evidence from the remains of the man discovered that he died in this manner. This diagram is how the appraisers imagined how the man was positioned for execution. As has been said, he could have died on an upright stake. Dr Zias himself has stated to an enquirer about how the article depicted the malefactor's position on the "cross," "Our reconstruction for the arms being tied in the manner in the article was purely hypothetical. The arms could have been tied to the cross in any number of ways[including above his head on an upright pole]." (see also New Analysis of the Crucified Man, Biblical Archaeology Review.)See Crucifixion in Antiquity by J.Zias.
To put in the title of these articles, the word "Crucified," could, in my opinion, be somewhat misleading. To the casual reader it might leave the impression that there is definite evidence/proof that this man was "crucified" on a "cross." But the writer by using this word does not mean to intimate that this man died on a cross shaped implement. See the quote from the Anchor Bible Dictionary above where the word "crucifixion" could mean an execution on a simple stake. The new investigators Zias and Sekeles stated about how the "crucified " man was attached to the cross: "The literary sources for the Roman period contain numerous descriptions of crucifixion but few exact details as to how the condemned were affixed to the cross. Unfortunately, the direct physical evidence here is also limited to one right heel calcaneum(heel bone)pierced by an 11.5 cm iron nail with traces of wood at both ends."
In essence, although this discovery is of great scholarly interest, it in no way adds anything more to the way we understand of what shape was the implement of Jesus' execution.
Also, some may point out that there is other archaeological evidence that Christians were "using" the cross in the first century and this particular evidence suggests the shape of the implement on which Jesus died. In Capernaum there is the Synagogue "The House of St Peter" built in the 1st century that has grafitti "crosses" on it's walls. However, the plaster on or in which these "crosses" are found are of a much younger date than the building itself. The house being re-plastered many times since it was first built ! They are not of first century origin.
One writer has said:
"Historical findings have substantiated the traditional cross. One finding is a graffito dating to shortly after 200 A.D., taken from the walls of the Roman Palatine. It is a drawing of a crucified ass; a mockery of a Christian prisoner who worships Christ. The Romans were no doubt amused that Christians worshiped this Jesus whom they had crucified on a cross."
A graffito found on the Palatine in Rome
To this can be said:
This drawing was discovered in 1856 on the walls of the above mentioned building. This "crucified ass" is a human figure but with an animals head. The arms are extended. Two lines that form a cross appear in front, not behind this graffito, traversing the arms and legs. There is an accompanying inscription which says: "Alexamenos adores his God." It has been pointed out that the lines that form this 'cross' may very well not be a part of the original graffito. Also, the head is more like a jackal than an ass and so the drawing could very well be a representation of the Egyptian god Anubis. This is certainly no evidence of a cross or a crufixion as drawn by Christians in the early 3rd century. Professor Graydon F. Snyder said about this piece of graffito: "In 1856 a drawing was found in the servants' quarters of the Imperial Palace in Rome that depicts a certain Alexamenos gesturing with his right hand toward a donkey crucified on it. A graffito below the cross reads: ... Presumably this inscription should be translated.
"Alexamenos, worship god." Though no fixed date can be given for this drawing, again one can easily assume such a derogatory cartoon did indeed mock the Christian kerygma. It's use by an opponent of the faith hardly proves that the cross was an early Christian symbol."
Professor Graydon also wrote:
Professor Graydon also wrote: "THE sign of the cross has been a symbol of great antiquity, present in nearly every known culture. Its meaning has eluded anthropologists, though its use in funerary art could well point to a defense against evil. On the other hand, the famous crux ansata of Egypt, depicted coming from the mouth, must refer to life or breath. The universal use of the sign of the cross makes more poignant the striking lack of crosses in early Christian remains, especially any specific reference to the event on Golgotha. Most scholars now agree that the cross, as an artistic reference to the passion event, cannot be found prior to the time of Constantine.
"...In 1938, in connection with the two hundred year celebration of excavations at Herculaneum, a house, appropriately called Casa del Bicentenario, was unearthed and made available to the public. In a second story room the excavators found a bare spot in the form of a cross. Obviously some cross-shaped object, previously attached to the wall, had been knocked off or taken off prior to the eruption of A.D. 79
"There were likely Christians in Herculaneum. Abundant evidence for a Jewish presence has been found. No reason would exist to doubt a Christian presence, nor any reason to doubt that those Christians would have met in houses like Casa del Bicentenario. But this so-called cross could have been anything attached to the wall by two cross pieces. And if it were a cross, it would simply appear to us as a surd in the devepment of early Christian art: it came three hundred years too soon."
"A second approach to the problem of the late appearence of the cross in early Christianity has been to appropriate crosses found in the social matrix. ...Most examples of crosses with possible early Christian implications have been found in Palestine. ..One ought not to deny the existence of these common cross sign in the Mediterranean area, nor reference to them by early Christian writers, but they have no connection with the crucifixion of Jesus. In Roman style Christian art that implication first appears at the earliest in the fourth century and certainly by the fifth. Tzaferis finds no Christian crosses in Palestine before mid-fourth century.
"A third method has been to uncover cryptocrosses. Testa especially sees a cross in many decorations. Even more popular is the assignment of the cross symbol to anchors, ships' masts, and the like... Others, such as Guarducci, believe early Christians signalled their faith by writing the Greek tau - T - larger than the other letters, or by using common abbreviations like XP to express their hidden allegiance to Christ. It would be difficult to disprove the meanings of a cryptosymbol as to prove it. The burden of proof lies with those who find private meanings.
"While there may very well be a place in early Christian art for the protective cross of the social matrix, there is no place for the kerymatic cross. .. There is no place in the third century for a crucified Christ, or a symbol of divine death..."—Ante Pacem—Archaeological Evidence of Church Life Before Constantine (1985) pages 26-29. Italics ours.
So much for the archaeological 'evidence' that would put the Christ on an implement of execution made up of two pieces that formed a cross.
In the 1950 edition of the New World Translation there is an appendix on the word stauros. There it mentions the Greek hero Prometheus as tied to a stake. As many reference works say that Prometheus was tied to a rock the WTB&TS was 'challenged' to substantiate this claim. They did so by way a "Question from Readers" article that appeared in The Watchtower 1951, March 15th, p.190.
Encyclopedia Americana
"Just as you have heard, the Americana Encyclopedia in its article on "Prometheus Bound', the tragedy by the Greek poet Aeschylus, also represents Prometheus clamped to a rock in the Caucasus by forging. However, we should like to refer you to the book The History of the Devil and the Idea of Evil from the Earliest Times to the Present Day, by Dr. Paul Carus, and published in Chicago by The Open Court Publishing Co. in 1900. On page 210 it gives the illustration of a man tied to a stake, under which illustration it says: 'Prometheus tied by Zeus to the stake (or cross) and exposed to the Eagle-. Rescue by Hercules (A vase found at Chiusi, now in Berlin. Baumeister, D.dcl.A., p. 1410)." On this page Dr. Carus says: "in spite of the strong admixture of foreign mythology, Hercules has become the national hero of Greece, and the Greek idea of salvation has found in him the most typical expression, which has been most beautifully worked out by Aeschylus in a grand tragedy which represents Prometheus (the forethinker) as struggling and suffering mankind, tied to the pole of misery by Zeus as a punishment for the sin of having brought the bliss of light and fire down to the earth. But at last the divine saviour, Hercules, arrives, and, killing the eagle that lacerates the liver of the bold hero, sets him free.Prometheus and Hercules are combined into one person in the Christian Saviour, Jesus Christ. The similarity of the story of Golgotha with the myth of Prometheus is not purely accidental. For observe that in some of the older pictures, as, for instance, in the vase of [page 211] Chiusi (see illustration on page 210), Prometheus is not chained to a rock but tied to a pole, that is, to a [stauros]or cross, and Greek authors frequently use expressions such as the verb ananskolopizeothai (Aeschylus) and anastaurousthai (Lucian) which mean 'to be crucified.' " "
Dr. Carus says
"On pages 217, 218 Dr. Carus says: "Plato, who, perhaps under the impression of Aeschylus's conception of the tragic fate of Prometheus, says of the perfect man who would rather be than appear just: 'They will tell you that the just man who is thought unjust will be scourged, racked, bound; will have his eyes burnt out; and, at last, after suffering every kind of evil, he will be hung up at the pale.' The strangest thing about this passage is that the word which means 'he will be hung up at the stake', or'fixed on a pale', is an older synonym of the New Testament term commonly translated 'to crucify."'
"The above agrees with the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures in its Appendix, page 769, in saying that the instrument upon which Jesus was nailed was a stake without a crossbeam, and not the religiously represented 'cross"; and that the Greek word used for that instrument in ancient time meant a "stake" and not the conventional religious cross."
What about the statement made by Thomas as recorded for us at John 20:25? Thomas said: "Unless I see in his hands the print of the nails and stick my finger into the print of the nails and stick my hand into his side, I will not believe."
In regard to this The Watchtower, 1984, April 1st, p.31 commented:
"[Question] Is it correct to conclude from John 20:25 that Jesus was impaled with a separate nail through each hand?
The Cyclopaedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, by M'Clintock and Strong, comments:
"Much time and trouble have been wasted in disputing as to whether three or four nails were used in fastening the Lord. Nonnus affirms that three only were used, in which he is followed by Gregory Nazianzen. The more general belief gives four nails, an opinion which is supported at much length and by curious arguments by Curtius. Others have carried the number of nails as high as fourteen."-Volume II, page 580.
Matthew 27:35 merely says: "When they had impaled him they distributed his outer garments by casting lots." Little detail is given, as in Mark, Luke and John. After Jesus' resurrection, Thomas said: " Unless I see in his hands the print of the nails and stick my finger into the print of the nails and stick my hand into his side, I will certainly not believe" (John 20:25) So even though criminals sometimes were bound to a stake with ropes, Jesus was nailed. Some have also concluded from John 20:25 that two nails were used, one through each hand. But does Thomas' use of the plural (nail's) have to be understood as a precise description indicating that each of Jesus' hands was pierced by a separate nail?
In Luke 24:39 the resurrected Jesus said: "See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself." This suggests that Christ's feet also were nailed. Since Thomas made no mention of nail prints in Jesus' feet, his use of the plural "nail's" could have been a general reference to multiple nails used in impaling Jesus.
Thus, it just is not possible at this point to state with certainty how many nails were used. Any drawings of Jesus on the stake should be understood as artists' productions that offer merely a representation based on the limited facts that we have. Debate over such an insignificant detail should not be permitted to becloud the all-important truth that "we became reconciled to God through the death of his Son."- Romans 5:10."(italics for emphasis)
An appeal to the words of Thomas then cannot be used either to show what kind of stauros Jesus was executed upon or that the illustrations found in the WTB&TS publications are erroneous when they depict Jesus' 'hands' being affixed by just one nail.
On the history of the use of crucifixion in pre-Christian and Christian times, as a means to inflict torture and to execute, and how it was the most terrible way for a malefactor to end his life see here
On an online discussion board one poster stated in regard to the WTB&TS's use of works that discuss the Greek word Stauros and the form of execution of the crucifixion said:
QUOTE.......... MISQUOTE
"QUOTE.......... MISQUOTE: In its "Reasoning From the Scriptures" book, the Watchtower Society quotes from several sources to support their "torture stake" theory. These publications not only seem authoritative, but also seem to support the Society's claims regarding the "torture stake" rather than the traditional cross. However, unbeknown to many, the Watchtower Society has not been honest in its quotations of its sources. For example, one publication that the Society quotes in its "Reasoning..." book on page 89 is The Imperial Bible Dictionary. Below is the Watchtower quotation, with the words that they omitted in RED: "The Imperial Bible Dictionary acknowledges this, saying: "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. But a modification was introduced as the dominion and usages of Rome extended themselves through Greek-speaking countries. Even amongst the Romans, the crux (from which the word cross is derived) appears to have been originally an upright pole, and always remained the more prominent part. But from the time that it began to be used as an instrument of punishment, a traverse piece of wood was commonly added ... about the period of the Gospel Age, crucifixion was usually accomplished by suspending the criminal on a cross piece of wood." "-italics ours.
But this attempt at trying to malign the WTB&TS's use of this Bible Dictionary is easily put to the lie itself. For the poster omitted to tell his readers what the publication "Reasoning from the Scriptures"(p.89) said just before quoting the above named Dictionary. We can read his own omission which I will put in green: "The Greek word rendered "cross" in many modern Bible versions ("torture stake" in NWT) is stauros. In classical Greek, this word meant merely an upright stake, or pale. Later it also came to be used for an execution stake having a crosspiece. The Imperial Bible-Dictionary acknowledges....."- blue italics ours.Rather then the WTB&TS being "dishonest" it is the case that, sadly, the above poster has been. Notice also that this dictionary also said that the stauros being "originally an upright pole," "always remained the more prominent part." What we have read on this page already shows that though the Romans did indeed use two pieces of wood placed at right angles to each other to execute criminals we are still faced with the fact that the Bible wrtiters give no indication that in Jesus' case it was other than an upright stake.
The poster went on to state:
"On page 91 of the "Reasoning..." book the Society quotes from The Cross in Ritual, Architecture and Art by G. S. Tyack to show that the cross was originally used in pagan worship, but they do NOT go on to quote: "In all this, the Christians of the first age would have rejoiced, claiming it as a worldwide prophecv of the Cross of the Redeemer."
Of course, what the poster is not telling, again, his readers, is that this work(and three others found on p.91 of the Reasoning Book)was quoted under the heading "What were the historical origins of Christendom's cross?"(p.90) Hence, to quote Tyack here as saying "It is strange, yet unquestionably a fact, that in ages long before the birth of Christ, and since then in lands untouched by the teaching of the Church, the Cross has been used as a sacred symbol...The Greek Bacchus, the Tyrian Tammuz, the Chaldean Bel, and the Norse Odin, were all symbolised to their votaries by a cruciform device," was quite appropriate and fitting. However, the above remarks which Tyack followed up this "strange yet unquestionable fact" was just his opinion and one which was not based on any archaeological evidence whatsoever. We have already read that which Professor Graydon has written that the Christians in the early centuries did not use a "cross" in their worship or devotions.
The "Christians of the first age" certainly did not "rejoice" in any way at the pagans use of the cross as a symbol in their worship. It is as Vine correctly stated was the case that "By the middle of the 3rd cent. A.D. the churches had either departed from, or had travestied, certain doctrines of the Christian faith. In order to increase the prestige of the apostate ecclesiastical system pagans were recieved into the churches apart from regeneration of faith, and were permitted largely to retain their pagan signs and symbols. Hence the Tau or T, in it's most frequent form, with the cross-piece lowered, was adopted to stand for the cross of Christ"
It is very easy for a distractor of the NWT/WTB&TS to carp at a translation that he disagrees with. But it is sad when he does that which he falsely accuses the said Bible Society of doing. Being dishonest.
What of Jesus' words recorded for us by John at John 21:18,19:
"Most truly I say to you, When you were younger, you used to gird yourself and walk about where you wanted. But when you grow old you will stretch out your hands and another [man] will gird you and bear you where you do not wish." This he said to signify by what sort of death he would glorify God. So, when he had said this, he said to him: "Continue following me."-NWT.
In answer to a question as to whether this shows that Peter himself was 'crucified' on a cross or a stake a 'Question from Readers' article in The Watchtower of 1970, page 768 answered:
"John 21:18, 19 says concerning the apostle Peter: “‘When you were younger, you used to gird yourself and walk about where you wanted. But when you grow old you will stretch out your hands and another man will gird you and bear you where you do not wish.’ This [Jesus] said to signify by what sort of death [Peter] would glorify God.” Do these words specifically refer to a death by crucifixion or impalement?
"The ancient religious historian Eusebius reports that Peter “was crucified with his head downward, having requested of himself to suffer in this way.” However, Jesus’ prophecy regarding Peter’s death was not that specific. Acknowledges A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture: “As the extension of hands is set before girding and being led away, it is difficult to discern how it must be conceived. If the order is part of the prophecy, we must suppose the prisoner lashed to the patibulum before being girded and led out to execution.”
So, were it not for the tradition recorded by Eusebius, Jesus’ statement in itself would not point to a death by crucifixion or impalement. Viewing the words of John 21:18, 19 apart from tradition, we would come to the following conclusion: In his younger years Peter was able to gird himself at will for whatever duty he wanted to perform. He had the liberty to go where he wanted to go. But in later life this would change. He would have to stretch out his hands, perhaps in submission to someone else. Another man would take control of him, girding Peter (either binding him or preparing him for what was to come) and bearing him to a place where he did not want to go, evidently the place of execution. Thus Jesus’ prophecy regarding Peter indeed indicated that the apostle would die a martyr’s death; but the manner of this death is not necessarily implied."
In might be added that the word rendered "will gird,"in v.18, is ZWSEI (which is the future of ZWNNUMI) is also found at Acts 12:8 and is always used in the LXX(and in other Greek works generally) of girding on clothes or armour and there cannot be an instance cited for a use of it as to bind as a criminal. This, the former sense, might be the one it has in v.18 where Jesus says: .."When you were younger you used to gird(Gk: EZWNNUES "you were girding")" It may, again , have the same sense when Jesus uses it once more as we find in this same verse, "and another [man] will gird you." We may also compare this with DIEZWSATO(aorist middle DIAZWNNOMI) "to gird one's self by pulling up the tunic and allowing a fold to fall over the belt" at 21:7. John 21:18,19 does not tell us how Peter died just that his death glorified God- and it certainly cannot be used to show that Jesus died on a two beamed cross!
In support of this is what is written in A Bible Commentary for English Readers, editored by C.J.Elliott, Vol. VI, page 549:
"Thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee.-Do these words refer to the crucifixion of Peter? Tradition, from Tertullian downwards(Scorp. 15; De Praescr. 35), states that he was crucified, and, interpretating this prophecy by the evnt, asserts that they do. Tertullian himself so understood them, for he says, "Then is Peter girded by another when he is bound to the cross."
But on the other hand, (1) the girding(with chains) would precede, not follow, the crucifixion; (2) it would be more natural to speak of another stretching forth his hands if the nailing to them to the cross was intended; (3) the last clause, "carry thee whither thou wouldst not," could not follow the stretching of the hands on the transverse beam of the cross.
It seems impossible therefore to adopt the traditional reference to crucifixion, and we must take the words, "stretch forth your hands," as expressing symbolically the personal surrender previous to being girded by another. To what exact form of death the context does not specify. We have thus in the second pair of sentences, as in the first and third, a complete parellelism, the stretching forth of the hands being part of the girding by another, and the whole being in contrast to "Thou girdest thyself.""
And:
" "Stretch forth thy hands."[John 21:18] The allusion to the extending of the hands on the cross, which some interpreters have found here, is fanciful.”–Vincent’s Word Studies (italics for emphasis))
Psalms 22:14:
A poster on the JW board on CARM offered the following as "proof" that Jesus died upon a two-beamed cross rather than an upright stake(March 2003). He stated that where we read at Psalms 22:14 that "Verse 14 in particular is interesting in that He mentions that His bones are out of joint. On a crucifix when the wrists are nailed to the patibalum (cross-piece) and attached and raised onto the main pole, the victims arms would be extended up to six inches, causing dislocation. This is simply not possible on a 'torture stake."
Of course, v.14 reads "I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint; my heart is like wax"(New Revised Standard Version) What we have here is not a prophetic description of the literal anatomical condition of the Christ when dying on the STAUROS but is the employment by the Psalmist of "anatomical terms to indicate the nearness of death"(The New Interpreter's Bible, Volume 4, p.763). Yes, the Psalmist is using such imagery as A. A. Anderson also informs us:
"14. I am poured out like water: (cf. Jos. 7:15). This, and the following description in verses 14b-15, need not necessarily refer to the consequences of an illness, but it may denote the physical expressions of fear and anxiety. The above mentioned word-picture probably means that the Psalmist regards himself as good as dead.
all my bones are out of joint: this is a graphic description of utter helplessness, and is equivalent to 'paralysed with fear'.
my heart is like wax: the Psalmist has become greatly afraid and fainthearted(as in Dt. 20:8; Jos. 2:11)."-The New Century Bible Commentary, Psalms, Volume 1(1-72), Marshall, Morgan & Scott Publ. Ltd, London, Reprint of March 1992, pp.189, 190.-italics ours.
The imagery expressed by the words "all my bones are out of joint" indicates the "utter helplessness" of the Psalmist and has no bearing on whether his literal bones(note "all [his] bones" not just his shoulder bones!!) were "dislocated" just as the psalmists words "my heart is like wax" was not meant to be understood literally but is an illustration of the distressed condition of the heart.
Hence, the poster who has attempted to employ the figurative words of the Psalmist(regarding the Hebrew word here: "be divided, seperated, from each other,...of bones= be loosened at the joint, [Ps]22:15(fig[urative] of helplessness);..."-The New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew-English Lexicon) at Psalms 22:14 as he has done has actually misunderstood the intended meaning of them! This scripture does not in any way offer 'evidence,' and certainly not 'proof,' that the STAUROS that Jesus died upon was either a two-beamed one or an up-right stake.
A very early representation of the Crucifixion in which only the two thieves are bound to the stauros. The sun and moon are placed either side of Christ who stands in an attitude of prayer.
Would a 1st century Christian revere the implement that was used to execute their Lord Jesus? Should Christians today?
"Rather than consider the torture stake upon which Jesus was impaled a relic to be worshiped, the Jewish Christians like Simon Peter would consider it to be an abominable thing. At Galatians 3:13 the apostle Paul quotes Deuteronomy 21:23 and says:"It is written: "Accursed is every man hanged upon a stake."" Hence the Jewish Christians would hold as accursed and hateful the stake upon which Jesus had been executed. Says the celebrated Jewish authority, Moses Maimon'ides, of the 12th century: "They never hang upon a tree which clings to the soil by roots; but upon a timber uprooted, that it might not be an annoying plague: for a timber upon which anyone has been hanged is buried; that the evil name may not remain with it and people should say, "This is the timber on which so-and-so was hanged".So the stone with which anyone has been stoned; and the sword, with which the one killed has been killed; and the cloth or mantle with which anyone has been strangled; all these things are buried along with those who perished. Apud Casaub.in Baron. Exercitat. 16, An. 34, Num. 134) Says Kalinski in Vaticinia Observationibus Illustrata, page 342: "Consequently since a man hanged was considered the greatest abomination- the Jews also hated more than other things the timber on which he had been hanged, so that they covered it also with earth, as being equally an abominable thing."
If any would answer that they may hold the cross as dear but do not worship it, then we would answer: How is it that this pagan symbol, used in pagan religions before and after the 1st century can find any place in a Christians' life in the light of what Paul wrote at 2 Cor.6:14-18. Can a Christian 'employ' a pagan symbol when pagans revered it as an idol while still claiming his worship is pure of idolatry just because his religion does not use the cross as an 'idol'?
Many thanks to my friends for this contribution.
letusreason
This page will address the following questions:
What was its form in the case of Jesus Christ? Was it a two-beamed cross or a simple upright stake?
Was wood scarce in and around Jerusalem at the time and does this have any bearing on what method the Romans used in Jesus' case?
What does the Greek word mean?
Are there scriptures that 'point' to its form?
What weight should be given to post-N.T christian writers?
Can archaeological findings, such as supposed 1st century christian inscriptions, be of help?
Has the New World Translation's choice been critiqued fairly?
Is the New World Translation alone in its preferred rendering?
Whatever form it was should we have it as a symbol in our places of worship or cherish, hold as dear, the implement of Christ's death?
The word "stauros" occurs 27 times in the Christian Greek Scriptures(the 'New Testament'). This word has been consistently translated in the New World Translation as "torture stake" and never as "cross". It is the implement on which Jesus Christ was afixed and executed. Also, another Greek word was used by the Bible writers "xylon", as the same implement of execution in regard to Jesus, which denotes, "wood, a piece of wood, anything made of wood..."-Vine. At those places where "xylon" is used in connection with Jesus' execution the New World Translation has rendered it as "stake". Is there any justification for the New World Translation to do this with these Greek words?
Vines Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words says:
"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. The shape of the latter had it's origin in ancient Chaldea, and was used of the symbol of of the god Tammaz(being in the shape of the mystic Tau, the initial of his name in that country and adjacent lands, including Egypt. By the middle of the 3rd cent. A.D. the churches had either departed from, or had travestied, certain doctrines of the Christian faith. In order to increase the prestige of the apostate ecclesiastical system pagans were received into the churches apart from regeneration of faith, and were permitted largely to retain their pagan signs and symbols. Hence the Tau or T, in it's most frequent form, with the cross-piece lowered, was adopted to stand for the cross of Christ"
The Classic Greek Dictionary, Greek-English and English-Greek, With an Appendix of Proper and Geographical Names prepared by George Ricker Berry reads:
Under "stauros": "..an upright pale, stake or pole; in plu. a palisade. II. the Cross.(p.648). Although this lexicon seems to give "the Cross" as a meaning for "stauros" it seems rather as a reference than a meaning("the Cross" rather than "a cross")and to that of Jesus Christ. Hence definition II is somewhat 'suspect' and may only reflect the lexicons belief that the stauros in the NT was cross-shaped or it may be giving it as a reference, that is, that when we read in the English Bibles "cross" this is from the Greek stauros and no indication it was actually cross-shaped. In its definition 1 though there is no doubt the meaning of stauros and anything other than that stauros meant more than one piece of wood, whether it was a "pale, stake or pole" is not mentioned and certainly none of which were 'cross-shaped.' This is its meaning in all the Greek classics such as Homer. There is no evidence that the from or shape of the stauros in Jesus Christ's case was any different.
Vines Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words has under the word Tree:
"2.XULON.....(b) of the Cross, the tree being the stauros, the upright pale or stake to which the Romans nailed those who were to be executed, Acts 5:30; 10:39; 13:29; Gal.3:13; 1 Pet.2:24;"
According to a Greek-English lexicon by Liddell and Scott, this word means "Wood cut and ready for use, firewood, timber, etc. . . . piece of wood, log, beam, post . . . cudgel, club . . . stake on which criminals were impaled . . . of live wood, tree." "wood . . . " Hence in the Authorized Version/King James Version this word is rendered as "tree" at Acts 5:30. The Complete Jewish Bible by D. Stern has here "stake." See also Acts 13:29; Galatians 3:13; 1 Peter 2:24.
In agreement with the above is that which Dr Jason BeDuhn has written(a private letter written to us and published with his permission) when asked what he thought of the New World Translation's rendering of the word "stauros":
"On "torture stake," again, I think that the NWT is a bit heavy handed in trying to make a point. Certainly "stake" would be sufficient, and more desirable. The JW's are trying to shock Christians away from their devotion to the cross. It is, after all, an instrument of execution. They are right that STAUROS does not necessarily mean the cross form as Christianity has thought of it. It can be just a plain stake in the ground to which someone is nailed. But I think "torture" is too much and misses the point: it is meant to be a form of execution and not torture.
Also, the Companion Bible in it's Appendix 162 remarks:
"In the Greek N.T. two words are used for "the cross", on which the Lord was put to death.1. The word stauros; which denotes an upright pale or stake, to which the criminals were nailed for execution. 2. The word xulon, which generally denotes a piece of a dead log of wood, or timber, for fuel or for any other purpose. It is not like dendron, which is used of a living, or green tree, as in Matt.21: 8; Rev.7: 1, 3; 8:7; 9: 4, &c. As this latter word xulon is used for the former stauros it shows us the meaning of each is exactly the same. The verb stauroo means to drive stakes. Our English word "cross" is the translation of the Latin crux; but the Greek stauros no more means a crux than the word "stick" means a "crutch". Homer uses the word stauros of an ordinary pole or stake, or a simple piece of timber.[ftnote, Iliad xxiv.453. Odyssey xiv.11] And this is the meaning and usage of the word throughout the Greek classics.[ftnote, eg.Thucydides iv.90. Xenophon, Anabasis v.2.21] It never means two pieces of timber placed across one another at any angle, but of always one piece alone. Hence the use of the word xulon(No.2 above)in connection with the manner of our Lord's death and rendered "tree" in Acts 5:30; 10:39; 13:29; Gal.3:13, 1 Pet.2:24. This is preserved in our old English name rood or rod. See Encycl.Brit., 11th (Camb)ed., vol.7, p.505d. There is nothing in the Greek of the N.T. even to imply two pieces of timber."
A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament, p819. E.W.Bullinger states:
"Used here[cross] for the stauros on which Jesus was crucified. Both words[stauros, xylon]disagree with the modern idea of a cross, with which we have become familiarized by pictures. The stauros was simply an upright pale or stake to which the Romans nailed those who were thus said to be crucified. Stauroo[the verb], merely to drive stakes. It never means two pieces of wood joining each other at any angle. Even the Latin word crux means a mere stake."
The Concordant Literal New Testament with the Keyword Concordance states:
"stauros STANDer: cross, an upright stake or pole, without any crosspiece, now, popularly, cross..."
also
"stauroo cause-STAND, crucify, drive a stake into the ground, fasten on a stake, impale, now by popular usage, crucify, though there was no crosspiece."- pp. 63, 64, Greek-English Keyword Concordance, Concordant Publishing Concern, 1983, 3rd printing of 6th edition of 1976.
The Anchor Bible Dictionary says about crucifixion:
"The act of nailing or binding a living victim or sometimes a dead person to a cross or stake(stauros or skolops) or a tree(xylon)...Under the Roman Empire, crucifixion normally included a flogging beforehand. At times the cross was only one vertical stake. Frequently, however, there was a cross-piece attached..."- Volume 1, pp.1207, 1208
The book Dual Heritage-The Bible and the British Museum states:
“It may come as a shock to know that there is no word such as ‘cross’ in the Greek of the New Testament. The word translated ‘cross’ is always the Greek word [stauros] meaning a ‘stake’ or ‘upright pale.’ The cross was not originally a Christian symbol; it is derived from Egypt and Constantine.”
To read what an issue of The Watchtower magazine wrote in 1950 when the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures was published see here.
Also, the following work is worth quoting from at length(and it is long), it being:
The Non-Christian Cross, An Enquiry into the Origin and History of the Symbol Eventually Adopted as that of our Religion,
by John Denham Parsons:
"In the thousand and one works supplied for our information upon matters connected with the history of our race, we are told that Alexander the Great, Titus,and various Greek, Roman,and Oriental rulers of ancient days, "crucified" this or that person; or that they "crucified" so many at once, or during their reign. And the instrument of execution is called a "cross."
The natural result is that we imagine that all the people said to have been "crucified" were executed by being nailed or otherwise affixed to a cross-shaped instrument set in the ground, like that to be seen in our fanciful illustrations of the execution of Jesus.
This was, however, by no means necessarily the case.
For instance, the death spoken of, death by the stauros, included transfixion by a pointed stauros or stake, as well as affixion to an unpointed stauros or stake; and the latter punishment was not always that referred to.
It is also probable that in most of the many cases where we have no clue as to which kind of stauros was used, the cause of the condemned one's death was transfixion by a pointed stauros. Moreover, even if we could prove that this very common mode of capital punishment was in no case that referred to by the historians who lived in bygone ages, and that death was in each instance caused by affixion to, instead of transfixion by, a stauros, we would still have to prove that each stauros had a cross-bar before we could correctly describe the death caused by it as death by crucifixion.
It is also, upon the face of it, somewhat unlikely that the ancients would in every instance in which they despatched a man by affixing him to a post sat in the ground, have gone out of their way to provide the artistic but quite unecessary cross-bar of our imagination.
As it is, in any case, well known that the Romans very often despatched those condemned to death by affixing them to a stake or post which had no cross-bar, the question arises as to what proof we have that a cross-bar was used in the case of Jesus...
What the ancients used to signify when they used the word stauros , can easily be seen by referring to either the Iliad or the Odyssey...
The stauros used as an instrument of execution was (1)a small pointed pole or stake used for thrusting through the body, so as to pin the latter to the earth, or otherwise render death inevitable; (2)a similar pole or stake fixed in the ground point upwards, upon which the condemned one was forced down till incapable of escaping; (3)a much longer and stouter pole or stake fixed point upwards, upon which the victim, with his hands tied behind him, was lodged in such a way that the point should enter his breast and the weight of the body cause every movement to hasten the end; and (4)a stout unpointed pole or stake set upright in the earth, from which the victim was suspended by a rope round his wrists, which were first tied behind him so that the position might become an agonising one; or to which the doomed one was bound, or ,in the case of Jesus, nailed.
That this last named kind of stauros, which was admittedly that to which Jesus was affixed, had in every case a cross-bar attached is untrue; that it had in most cases is unlikely; that it had in the case of Jesus,is unproven.
Even as late as the Middle Ages, the word stauros seems to have primarily signified a straight piece of wood without a cross-bar. For the famous Greek lexicographer, Suidas, expressly states, "Stauroi; ortha xula peregota," and both Eustathius and Hesychius affirm that it meant a straight stake or pole.
The side light thrown upon the question by Lucian is also worth noting. The writer, referring to Jesus, alludes to "That sophist of theirs who was fastened to a skolops;" which word signified a single piece of wood, and not two pieces joined together.
Only a passing notice need be given to the fact that in some of the Epistles of the New Testament,which seem to have been written before the Gospels,though,like the other Epistles,misleadingly placed after the gospels, Jesus is said to have been hanged upon a tree.....the word translated "tree," though that always used in referring to what is translated as the "Tree of Life," signified not only "tree" but also "wood."
It should be noted, however, that these five references of the Bible to the execution of Jesus as having been carried out by his suspension upon a tree or a piece of timber set in the ground, in no wise convey the impression that two pieces of wood nailed together in the form of a cross is what is referred to.
Moreover, there is not, even in the Greek text of the Gospels, a single intimation in the Bible to the effect that the instrument actually used in the case of Jesus was cross-shaped.
Had there been any such intimation in the twenty-seven Greek works referring to Jesus, which our Church selected out of a very large number and called the "New Testament," the Greek letter chi, which was cross-shaped, would in the ordinary course have been referred to; and some such term as Kata chiasmon, "like a chi," made use of.
It should also be borne in mind that though the Christians of the first three centuries certainly made use of a transient sign of the cross in the non-Mosaic initiatory rite of baptism and at other times, it is, as will be shown in the next two chapters, admitted that they dlid not use or venerate it as a representation of the instrument of execution upon which Jesus died. Moreover, if in reply to the foregoing it should be argued that as it is well known that cross-shaped figures of wood, and other representations of the sign or figure of the cross, were not venerated by Christians until after the fateful day when Constantine set out at the head of thle soldiers of Gaul in his famous march against Rome ; and that the Christian crosses of the remainder of the fourth century were representations of the instrument of execution upon which Jesus died; a dozen other objections present themselves if we are honest enough to face the fact that we have to show that they were so from the first. For the Gauls, and therefore the soldiers of Gaul, venerated as symbols of the Sun-God and Giver of Life and Victory the cross of four equal arms, + or X , and the solar wheel, while the so-called cross which Constantine and his troops are said to have seen above the midday sun was admittedly the monogram of Christ, , which was admittedly an adaptation of the solar wheel, as will be shown further on ; and it was as tokens of the conquest of Rome by his Gaulish troops, that Constantine, as their leader, erected one of these symbols in the centre of the Eternal City, and afterwards placed upon his coins the crosses.......the cross of four equal arms X, and several variations of that other cross of four equal arms, the right-angled +. And it was not till long after these crosses were accepted as Christian, and Constantine was dead and buried, that the cross with one of its arms longer than the other three (or two), which alone could be a representation of an instrument of execution, was made use of by Christians.
Another point to be remembered is that when Constantine, apparently conceiving ours, as the only non-national religion with ramifications throughout his world-wide dominions, to be the only one that could weld together the many nations which acknowlcdged his sway, established Christianity as the State Religion of the Roman Empire, the Church to which we belong would naturally have had to accept as its own the symbols which Constantine had caused to be those of the State in question. And it should be added that the cross of later days with one of its arms longer than the others, if not also the assumption that the stauros to which Jesus was affixed had a cross-bar, may have been merely the outcome of a wish to associate with the story of Jesus these Gaulish symbols of victory which had become symbols of the Roman State, and therefore of its State Church.
Anyway, the first kind of cross venerated by Christians was not a representation of an instrument of execution ; and the fact that we hold sacred many different kinds of crosses, although even if we could prove that the stauros to which Jesus was affixed had a cross-bar but one kind could be a representation of that instrument of execution, has to be accounted for.
Our only plausible explanation of the fact that we hold sacred almost any species of cross is that, as we do not know what kind of cross Jesus died upon, opinions have always differed as to which was the real cross.
This difference of opinion among Christians as to the shape of the instrument upon which Jesus was executed, has certainly existed for many centuries. But as an explanation of the many different kinds of crosses accepted by us as symbols of Christ, it only lands us in a greater difficulty. For if we did not know what kindof cross Jesus died upon when we accepted the cross as our symbol, the chances obviously are that we accepted the cross as our symbol for some other reason than that we assert. As a mattter of fact our position regarding the whole matter is illogical and unsatisfactory, and we ought to alter it by honestly facing the facts that we cannot satisfactorily prove that our symbol was adopted as a representation of the instrument of execution to which Jesus, was affixed, and that we do not even know for certain that the instrument in question was cross-shaped.
It need only be added that 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 of one piece of timber, but of two pieces nailed together in the form of a cross.
Taking the whole of the foregoing facts into consideration, it will be seen that it is not a little misleading upon the part of our teachers to translate the word stauros as "cross" when rendering the Greek documents of the Church into our native tongue, and to support that action by putting "cross" in our lexicons as the meaning of stauros without carefully explaining that that was at any rate not the primary meaning of the word in the days of the Apostles, did not become its primary signification till long afterwards, and became so then, if at all, only because, despite the absence of corroborative evidence, it was assumed that the particular stauros upon which Jesus was executed had that particular shape.
But-the reader may object-how about the Greek word which in our Bibles is translated as "crucify" or "crucified?" Does not that mean "fix to a cross" or "fixed to a cross?" And what is this but the strongest possible corroboration of our assertion as Christians that Jesus was executed upon a cross-shaped instrument?
The answer is that no less than four different Greek words are translated in our Bibles as meaning "crucify" or "crucified," and that not one of the four meant "crucify" or "crucified."
The four words in question are the words prospegnumi, anastauroo, sustauroo, and stauroo.
"The word prospegnumi, though translated in our Bibles as "crucify" or "crucified," meant to "fix" to or upon, and meant that only. It had no special reference to the affixing of condemned persons either to a stake, pale, or post, or to a tree, or to a cross; and had no more reference to a cross than the English word "fix" has.
The word anastauroo was never used by the old Greek writers as meaning other than to impale upon or with a single piece of timber.
The word sustauroo does not occur in pre-Christian writings, and only five times in the Bible against the forty-four times of the next word to be dealt with. Being obviously derived in part from the word stauros, which primarily signified a stake or pale which was a single piece of wood and had no cross-bar, sustauroo evidently meant affixion to such a stake or pale. Anyhow there is nothing whatever either in the derivation of the word, or in the context in either of the five instances in which it occurs, to show that what is referred to is affixion to something that was cross-shaped.
The word stauroo occurs, as has been said, forty four times; and of the four word in question by far the most frequently. The meaning of this word is therefore of special importance. It is consequently most significant to find, as we do upon investigation, that wherever it occurs in the pre-Christian classics it is used as meaning to impalisade, or stake, or affix to a pale or stake; and has reference, not to crosses, but to single pieces of wood.
It seems therefore tolerably clear (1) that the sacred writngs forming the New testament, to the statements of which-as translated for us-we bow down in reverence, do not tell us that Jesus was affixed to a cross-shaped instrument of execution; (2) that the balance of evidence is against the truth of our statements to the effect that the instrument in question was cross-shaped, and our sacred symbol originally a representation of the same; and (3) that we Christians have in bygone days acted, alas! still act, anything but ingenuously in regard to the symbol of the cross.
This is not all, however. For if the unfortunate fact that we have in our zeal almost manufactured evidence in favour of the theory that our cross or crosses had it's or their origin in the shape of the instrument of execution to which Jesus was affixed proves anything at all, it proves the need for a work which, like the present one, sets in array the evidence available regarding both the pre-Christian cross and the adoption in later times of a similar symbol as that of the catholic faith."
Nor should it be forgotten that the triumph of Christianity was due to the fact that it was a " catholic " faith, and not, like the other faiths followed by the subjects of Rome, and like what Jesus seems to have intended the results of His mission to have been inasmuch as He solemnly declared that he was sent to the lost sheep of the House of Israel and to them alone, the monopoly of a single nation or race. For if Paul, taking his and other visions of Jesus as the long-needed proofs of a future life, had not disregarded the very plain intimations of Jesus to the effect that His mission was to the descendants of Jacob or Israel, and to them alone; if Paul had not withstood Christ's representative, Peter, to the face, and, with unsurpassed zeal, carried out his grand project of proclaiming a non-national and universal religion founded upon appearances of the spirit-form of Jesus, what we call Christianity would not have come into existence.
The fact that but for Paul there would have been no catholic faith with followers in every land ruled by Constantine when sole emperor, for that astute monarch to establish as the State Religion of his loosely knit empire, because, on account of its catholicity, that best fitted to hold power as the official faith of a government with world-wide do minions , is worthy of a lasting place in our memory.
Nor is the noteworthy fact last mentioned unconnected with the symbol of the cross. For, as will be shown, it is clear that it was because Constantine caused the figure of the cross to become a recognized symbol of his catholic empire, that it became recognised as a symbol of the Catholic faith.
Not till after Constantine...
Not till after Constantine and his Gaulish warriors planted what Eusebius the Bishop of Caesarea and other Christians of the century in question describe as a cross, within the walls of the Eternal City as the symbol of their victory, did Christians ever set on high a cross-shaped trophy of any description.
Moreover, but for the fact that, as it happened the triumph of Constantine resulted in that of the Christian Church, we should probably have deemed the cross, if to our minds a representation of the instrument of execution to which Jesus was affixed, as anything but the symbol of Victory we now deem it.
This is evident from the fact that the so-called cross of Jesus admittedly fulfilled the purpose for which it was erected at the request of those who sought the death of Jesus. And even according to our Gospels the darkness of defeat over shadowed the scene at Calvary.
To put the matter plainly, the victory of Jesus was not a victory over the cross ; for He did not come down from the cross. Nor was it a victory over His enemies ; for what they sought was to get rid of a man whom they deemed an agitator, and their wish was gratified, inasmuch as, thanks to the cross, He troubled them no more.
In other words the victory which we ascribe to Jesus did not occur during the gloom which hung like a pall over his native land at the time of His execution, but upon the then approaching Sun-day of the Vernal Equinox, at the coming of the glory of the dawn. For the victory in question, from whatever point of view we may look at it, was not the avoidance of defeat, but its retrieval. And its story is an illustration of the old-world promise, hoary with antiquity and founded upon the coming, ushered in every year by the Pass-over or cross-over of the equator by the sun at the Vernal Equinox, of the bounteous harvests of summer after the dearth of devastating winter ; bidding us ever hope, not indeed for the avoidance of death and therefore of defeat, but for such victory as may happen to lay in survival or resurrection.
It is therefore clear that even if we could prove that the instrument of execution to which Jesus was affixed was cross-shaped, it would not necessarily follow that it was as the representation of the cause of His death which we now deem it, that the figure of the cross became our symbol of Life and Victory.
In any case honesty demands that we should no longer translate as "cross" a word which at the time our Gospels were written did not necessarily signify something cross-shaped. And it is equally incumbant upon us, from a moral point of view, that we should cease to render as "crucify" or "crucified" words which never bore any such meaning."
For Chapter II of Parson's book "The evidence of Minucius Felix" see here.
Chapter III "The evidence of the Other Fathers" here
Chapter IV "Curious statements of Irenaeus" here
Chapter V "Origin of the Pre-Christian Cross" here
Chapter VI "Origin of the Christian Cross" here
Chapters VII, VIII, XV, XVI AND XVII of The Non-Christian Cross see here
You may also like to read:
'Is the Cross for Christians?' -The Watchtower, August 15th, 1987, pp21-24; 'Where Were His Legs?' - ibid, pp. 28, 29.
The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, Reference Edition, 1984, Appendix 5C, pp. 1577-78.
The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures, 1985 ed.(WTB&TS), Appendix 3C, pp. 1149-1151
Insight on the Scriptures-'Impalement', Vol.1, pp.1190-1192.(WTB&TS)
"Also, they posted above his head the charge against him, in writing: "This is Jesus the King of the Jews.""(Matt.27:37)
-How Jesus may have been impaled* upon the stauros as pictured in an issue of The Watchtower August 15th 1987 p.24 (WatchTower Bible &Tract Society) Please note the above account of where the titulus(John 19:19 TITLON) was said to be placed was "above his head." As we can see, from the artist's drawing of Jesus' possible position on the stake on the left, anyone trying to employ this account against Jesus being executed upon an upright stake is employing a very weak arguement indeed!
Also, the WTS artist's depiction shows only one nail that fastens both arms of Jesus to the stake. But the WTS are not being dogmatic about how many nails were used in regard to the arms.Two could have been used. Please see further down regarding this.
The crux simplex
The crux simplex as illustrated by the Roman Catholic scholar Justus Lipsius in his book De Cruce Libri Tres. Interestingly, The Expositor's Greek Testament remarks: "Many questions on which there has been much discussion suggest themselves e.g., as to the structure and form of the cross: did it consist of an upright beam(palus, stipes)and a cross beam(patibulum, antenna), or of the former only, the hands being nailed to the beam above the head?(so Fulda, Das Kreus und die Kreusigung, 1878). Was Christ's cross a crux commissa(T) or a crux immissa(t)? Or is this distinction a purely imaginery one, as Fulda(p. 126) maintains against Justus Lipsius, till Fulda the great authority on the subject of crucifixion? The work of the more recent writer should certainly be consulted before coming to a final decision of the form of the cross or the method of crucifixion.."-Vol.1, p.328, 329.
It was only in 1936 in the book "Riches," again by J.F.Rutherford, that first made clear to Jehovah's Witnesses the fact that Jesus was not executed on a cross but on a stake. Afterwards, in the WTB&TS's literature the artists drawings of how Jesus may have died always picture him upon the stake.
In the first edition of the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures of 1950 an appendix clearly shows the felicitousness of translating the Greek word "stauros" as "torture stake" and not "cross."
The Cross and Crucifixion by Herman Fulda
Interestingly the appendix quotes the book The Cross and Crucifixion by Herman Fulda, Breslau, Germany, 1878 which said in part: "Trees were not everywhere available at the places chosen for the public execution. So a simple beam was sunk into the ground. On this outlaws, with hands raised upwards and often also with their feet, were bound or nailed....This simple cross was the oldest instrument erected by human hand for punishment with crucifixion; and because of it's very simplicity it has maintained itself in this form alongside its somewhat more artificial double down to the end." He concludes with the case of Jesus that he "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."-pp 156,339
Regarding the English word "impale"
Regarding the English word "impale"as used in the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures. It is from the French "empaler" which derives from Medieval Latin "impalere," from the Latin "in"-on + "palus"- stake, pole. Hence dictionaries define this word as "to pierce through with, or fix on, something pointed; transfix" and "to punish or torture by fixing on a stake." Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible states: "4717. STAUROW... to impale on the cross;...."
Hence, to use the word "impale" in the N.T. to describe how Jesus was fixed upon the stake is quite proper.
On a web site that addresses the use of the Kingdom Interlinear Translation's appendix on the the Greek word stauros rendered as "torture stake" in the New World Translation we find these comments:
"In the 1950 and 1969 editions of the New World Translation (in their appendix), the WT reproduces one of sixteen woodcut illustrations by the 16th century writer Justus Lipsius, who authored a work called De Cruce Liber Primus, Secundus and Tres. They reproduce his picture of a man impaled on an upright stake, failing to mention that Lipsius produced fifteen other illustrations (most of which picture various crucifixions on crosses). The WT makes the statement: "This is the manner in which Jesus was impaled" and a bit further on "The most amazing thing of all is that the WT could make a statement such as "evidence is completely lacking" that Jesus was crucified on a cross, when the VERY BOOK they use as "proof" to support their claims SAYS JESUS DIED ON A CROSS! One of the woodcuts of Lipsius not mentioned by the WT, shows a crucifixion on a cross. A partial translation of the Latin text alongside this woodcut says: In the Lord's cross there were four pieces of wood, the upright beam, the crossbar, a tree trunk (piece of wood) placed below, and the title (inscription) placed above. Also they hand down (this account by) Irenaeus: "The construction of the cross has five ends, two on the vertical and two on the horizontal, and one in the middle where the person attached with nails rested." (De Cruce Liber Secundus, pg. 661) The earlier (1950 and 1969) editions of the NWT, after referring to Lipsius' picture of a man on an upright stake stated, "This is the manner in which Jesus was impaled." They thereby attempted to convey the idea that Lipsius' book was proving their point. Since then the exposure of their dishonesty induced them to leave this statement out of the 1984 and 1985 versions of the NWT; but they STILL use Lipsius' illustration to make their point, while failing to tell the real story! They are intentionally avoiding the truth."
Several simple if serious errors
However the above makes several simple if serious errors in their allegations of impropriety with the above named WTB&TS publications articles. The fact is that Lipsius' woodcut illustration was not used as "proof" that the stauros which Jesus Christ was executed upon was a simple up-right stake! The 1950 NWT and the 1969 KIT just used this illustration to show that the crux simplex, Latin for a simple upright stake, was one method used, other than its artificial doubles with two-pieces of wood placed at a right angle to each other and hence this illustration serves the intent of the appendix article in simply showing what the victim would have looked like on such an implement. That the above WTB&TS publications "fail to mention that Lipsius produced fifteen other illustrations (most of which picture various crucifixions on crosses)" supposes that the publications appendices had to do so, that is, inform its readers that this was so. But why would they have to do this if the publications were only using Lipsius' illustration of a victim on a simple upright stake, a "crux simplex" and to illustrate this and nothing more!!! Of course they would not have to do so. What Lipsius thought the stauros' shape was in the case of Jesus was not based on anything other than tradition and as the The Expositor's Greek Testament remarks(which we will quote once more): "Many questions on which there has been much discussion suggest themselves e.g., as to the structure and form of the cross: did it consist of an upright beam(palus, stipes)and a cross beam(patibulum, antenna), or of the former only, the hands being nailed to the beam above the head?(so Fulda, Das Kreus und die Kreusigung, 1878). Was Christ's cross a crux commissa(T) or a crux immissa(t)? Or is this distinction a purely imaginery one, as Fulda(p. 126) maintains against Justus Lipsius, till Fulda the great authority on the subject of crucifixion? The work of the more recent writer should certainly be consulted before coming to a final decision of the form of the cross or the method of crucifixion.."-Vol.1, p.328, 329. Fulda also in his work has plates showing the differing shapes and methods impalement upon a stauros could take place. And Fulda, the "more recent writer" is against Lipsius on what shape it took in Christ's case and it is Fulda whom the WTB&TS publications quote in some length in support of translating the Greek word as "torture stake" rather than as "cross." The above accusations toward the WTB&TS publications appendices then are found to be wholly dishonest and deceptive"
Also one should also consider
Also one should also consider that wood at that time and place was scarce. Indeed, where the wood for execution was scarce there would be an economical reason to use only one piece of wood at times and this was so in the eastern parts of the Roman Empire. That one piece of wood would have been a simple stake, a stauros, that, at times, the malefactor was made to carry to the site of his execution and hung upon with hands above his head and would have been re-used time and again not being left in the ground to be attacked by the weather and wood boring insects. The fact that in places where wood was abundant the Romans at times, but not necessarily always, used two pieces, one called in latin a patibulum, the wood that served as a cross-piece and the stipes, the wood that served us the upright that was in/sunk into the ground would not be agreeable to the fact that wood was indeed scarce in the eastern provinces of the Roman Empire, such as Jerusalem was, as the stipes would have been attacked by the weather and insects such as the wasp if it was left out at all times. As the New Testament account is wholly silent on there being two pieces of wood, indeed, only ever mentioning one piece, then this, the scarcity of wood in Jerusalem actually argues against there being two pieces but for the simplest form of one piece, the single stake to be sunk into the ground after the malefactor had been affixed to it by either nails or rope. The New Testament account of Jesus' execution fits this extremely well, so well, that one wonders why any would contend otherwise lest they have a mis-directed devotion to the traditional two beamed cross for Jesus.
A burial cave at Giv'at ha-Mivtar
In 1968 there was discovered in a burial cave at Giv'at ha-Mivtar the remains of a male that had been executed during the Roman period. This has been the only anthropological evidence of the practice of "cricifixion" or "impalement on a stake." The original report on this find aroused much scholarly interest. However, due to the pressure of certain religous authorities, the analysis of the remains, by Professor Nico Haas and his medical team, were hurried and succeeding articles were published on these. One, by a Vassilios Tzaferis, the excavator of the man, based on this teams findings, attemping to show what the position the man died on the implement of execution.
A re-evaluation has since been carried out. I have often met with some that say that this find shows that Jesus met his death on a cross.The man's remains, however, do not offer any such proof of this. For two reasons.(1) This man may not have been executed upon a cross, as some suppose it definitely was the case. He may well have died on a simple stake.The reason why some suppose that this man was executed upon a cross is partly based on Professor Haas' original appraisal and articles published since then based on them. Since then, inconsistencies have been found, amounting to a re-evaluation in certain respects.
(2)Even though this man may have, yet there is no proof of this, as has been said, died on a cross-shaped implement, how would this show that the shape of Jesus' "stauros" was also cross-shaped when the available evidence in his, Jesus' case, points toward a simple upright stake?
The re-evaluation was carried out by Joseph Zias of the Department of Antiquities and Museums, Israel and Eliezer Sekeles of the Hebrew University-Hadassah Medical School, Jerusalem. A good place to read their re-appraisal is the six page article in the Israel Exploration Journal, Vol.25, pp22-27, The Crucified Man from Giv'at ha-Mitvar:A Reappraisal.Dr Zias has himself stated regarding this find and what light it sheds, or rather, does not shed, upon how Jesus was crucified: "...my research on the case from Jerusalem does not in my opinion, shed any light as to how Jesus was crucified. All the NT says is that he [Jesus]was crucified, not how..."-(private e-mail correspondence).
This reappraisal affected many of the conclusions that had been made about the man's position during "crucifixion." On p.27 there is a diagram: "Proposed new reconstruction of the position of crucifixion," where you can see a man whose feet are each affixed to the upright with nails. The diagram also show the arms tied to another piece of wood forming a cross beam. (This diagram was re-produced in the article, "Where Were His Legs," in the Watchtower cited above) But it is not to be supposed from this that there was any evidence from the remains of the man discovered that he died in this manner. This diagram is how the appraisers imagined how the man was positioned for execution. As has been said, he could have died on an upright stake. Dr Zias himself has stated to an enquirer about how the article depicted the malefactor's position on the "cross," "Our reconstruction for the arms being tied in the manner in the article was purely hypothetical. The arms could have been tied to the cross in any number of ways[including above his head on an upright pole]." (see also New Analysis of the Crucified Man, Biblical Archaeology Review.)See Crucifixion in Antiquity by J.Zias.
To put in the title of these articles, the word "Crucified," could, in my opinion, be somewhat misleading. To the casual reader it might leave the impression that there is definite evidence/proof that this man was "crucified" on a "cross." But the writer by using this word does not mean to intimate that this man died on a cross shaped implement. See the quote from the Anchor Bible Dictionary above where the word "crucifixion" could mean an execution on a simple stake. The new investigators Zias and Sekeles stated about how the "crucified " man was attached to the cross: "The literary sources for the Roman period contain numerous descriptions of crucifixion but few exact details as to how the condemned were affixed to the cross. Unfortunately, the direct physical evidence here is also limited to one right heel calcaneum(heel bone)pierced by an 11.5 cm iron nail with traces of wood at both ends."
In essence, although this discovery is of great scholarly interest, it in no way adds anything more to the way we understand of what shape was the implement of Jesus' execution.
Also, some may point out that there is other archaeological evidence that Christians were "using" the cross in the first century and this particular evidence suggests the shape of the implement on which Jesus died. In Capernaum there is the Synagogue "The House of St Peter" built in the 1st century that has grafitti "crosses" on it's walls. However, the plaster on or in which these "crosses" are found are of a much younger date than the building itself. The house being re-plastered many times since it was first built ! They are not of first century origin.
One writer has said:
"Historical findings have substantiated the traditional cross. One finding is a graffito dating to shortly after 200 A.D., taken from the walls of the Roman Palatine. It is a drawing of a crucified ass; a mockery of a Christian prisoner who worships Christ. The Romans were no doubt amused that Christians worshiped this Jesus whom they had crucified on a cross."
A graffito found on the Palatine in Rome
To this can be said:
This drawing was discovered in 1856 on the walls of the above mentioned building. This "crucified ass" is a human figure but with an animals head. The arms are extended. Two lines that form a cross appear in front, not behind this graffito, traversing the arms and legs. There is an accompanying inscription which says: "Alexamenos adores his God." It has been pointed out that the lines that form this 'cross' may very well not be a part of the original graffito. Also, the head is more like a jackal than an ass and so the drawing could very well be a representation of the Egyptian god Anubis. This is certainly no evidence of a cross or a crufixion as drawn by Christians in the early 3rd century. Professor Graydon F. Snyder said about this piece of graffito: "In 1856 a drawing was found in the servants' quarters of the Imperial Palace in Rome that depicts a certain Alexamenos gesturing with his right hand toward a donkey crucified on it. A graffito below the cross reads: ... Presumably this inscription should be translated.
"Alexamenos, worship god." Though no fixed date can be given for this drawing, again one can easily assume such a derogatory cartoon did indeed mock the Christian kerygma. It's use by an opponent of the faith hardly proves that the cross was an early Christian symbol."
Professor Graydon also wrote:
Professor Graydon also wrote: "THE sign of the cross has been a symbol of great antiquity, present in nearly every known culture. Its meaning has eluded anthropologists, though its use in funerary art could well point to a defense against evil. On the other hand, the famous crux ansata of Egypt, depicted coming from the mouth, must refer to life or breath. The universal use of the sign of the cross makes more poignant the striking lack of crosses in early Christian remains, especially any specific reference to the event on Golgotha. Most scholars now agree that the cross, as an artistic reference to the passion event, cannot be found prior to the time of Constantine.
"...In 1938, in connection with the two hundred year celebration of excavations at Herculaneum, a house, appropriately called Casa del Bicentenario, was unearthed and made available to the public. In a second story room the excavators found a bare spot in the form of a cross. Obviously some cross-shaped object, previously attached to the wall, had been knocked off or taken off prior to the eruption of A.D. 79
"There were likely Christians in Herculaneum. Abundant evidence for a Jewish presence has been found. No reason would exist to doubt a Christian presence, nor any reason to doubt that those Christians would have met in houses like Casa del Bicentenario. But this so-called cross could have been anything attached to the wall by two cross pieces. And if it were a cross, it would simply appear to us as a surd in the devepment of early Christian art: it came three hundred years too soon."
"A second approach to the problem of the late appearence of the cross in early Christianity has been to appropriate crosses found in the social matrix. ...Most examples of crosses with possible early Christian implications have been found in Palestine. ..One ought not to deny the existence of these common cross sign in the Mediterranean area, nor reference to them by early Christian writers, but they have no connection with the crucifixion of Jesus. In Roman style Christian art that implication first appears at the earliest in the fourth century and certainly by the fifth. Tzaferis finds no Christian crosses in Palestine before mid-fourth century.
"A third method has been to uncover cryptocrosses. Testa especially sees a cross in many decorations. Even more popular is the assignment of the cross symbol to anchors, ships' masts, and the like... Others, such as Guarducci, believe early Christians signalled their faith by writing the Greek tau - T - larger than the other letters, or by using common abbreviations like XP to express their hidden allegiance to Christ. It would be difficult to disprove the meanings of a cryptosymbol as to prove it. The burden of proof lies with those who find private meanings.
"While there may very well be a place in early Christian art for the protective cross of the social matrix, there is no place for the kerymatic cross. .. There is no place in the third century for a crucified Christ, or a symbol of divine death..."—Ante Pacem—Archaeological Evidence of Church Life Before Constantine (1985) pages 26-29. Italics ours.
So much for the archaeological 'evidence' that would put the Christ on an implement of execution made up of two pieces that formed a cross.
In the 1950 edition of the New World Translation there is an appendix on the word stauros. There it mentions the Greek hero Prometheus as tied to a stake. As many reference works say that Prometheus was tied to a rock the WTB&TS was 'challenged' to substantiate this claim. They did so by way a "Question from Readers" article that appeared in The Watchtower 1951, March 15th, p.190.
Encyclopedia Americana
"Just as you have heard, the Americana Encyclopedia in its article on "Prometheus Bound', the tragedy by the Greek poet Aeschylus, also represents Prometheus clamped to a rock in the Caucasus by forging. However, we should like to refer you to the book The History of the Devil and the Idea of Evil from the Earliest Times to the Present Day, by Dr. Paul Carus, and published in Chicago by The Open Court Publishing Co. in 1900. On page 210 it gives the illustration of a man tied to a stake, under which illustration it says: 'Prometheus tied by Zeus to the stake (or cross) and exposed to the Eagle-. Rescue by Hercules (A vase found at Chiusi, now in Berlin. Baumeister, D.dcl.A., p. 1410)." On this page Dr. Carus says: "in spite of the strong admixture of foreign mythology, Hercules has become the national hero of Greece, and the Greek idea of salvation has found in him the most typical expression, which has been most beautifully worked out by Aeschylus in a grand tragedy which represents Prometheus (the forethinker) as struggling and suffering mankind, tied to the pole of misery by Zeus as a punishment for the sin of having brought the bliss of light and fire down to the earth. But at last the divine saviour, Hercules, arrives, and, killing the eagle that lacerates the liver of the bold hero, sets him free.Prometheus and Hercules are combined into one person in the Christian Saviour, Jesus Christ. The similarity of the story of Golgotha with the myth of Prometheus is not purely accidental. For observe that in some of the older pictures, as, for instance, in the vase of [page 211] Chiusi (see illustration on page 210), Prometheus is not chained to a rock but tied to a pole, that is, to a [stauros]or cross, and Greek authors frequently use expressions such as the verb ananskolopizeothai (Aeschylus) and anastaurousthai (Lucian) which mean 'to be crucified.' " "
Dr. Carus says
"On pages 217, 218 Dr. Carus says: "Plato, who, perhaps under the impression of Aeschylus's conception of the tragic fate of Prometheus, says of the perfect man who would rather be than appear just: 'They will tell you that the just man who is thought unjust will be scourged, racked, bound; will have his eyes burnt out; and, at last, after suffering every kind of evil, he will be hung up at the pale.' The strangest thing about this passage is that the word which means 'he will be hung up at the stake', or'fixed on a pale', is an older synonym of the New Testament term commonly translated 'to crucify."'
"The above agrees with the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures in its Appendix, page 769, in saying that the instrument upon which Jesus was nailed was a stake without a crossbeam, and not the religiously represented 'cross"; and that the Greek word used for that instrument in ancient time meant a "stake" and not the conventional religious cross."
What about the statement made by Thomas as recorded for us at John 20:25? Thomas said: "Unless I see in his hands the print of the nails and stick my finger into the print of the nails and stick my hand into his side, I will not believe."
In regard to this The Watchtower, 1984, April 1st, p.31 commented:
"[Question] Is it correct to conclude from John 20:25 that Jesus was impaled with a separate nail through each hand?
The Cyclopaedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, by M'Clintock and Strong, comments:
"Much time and trouble have been wasted in disputing as to whether three or four nails were used in fastening the Lord. Nonnus affirms that three only were used, in which he is followed by Gregory Nazianzen. The more general belief gives four nails, an opinion which is supported at much length and by curious arguments by Curtius. Others have carried the number of nails as high as fourteen."-Volume II, page 580.
Matthew 27:35 merely says: "When they had impaled him they distributed his outer garments by casting lots." Little detail is given, as in Mark, Luke and John. After Jesus' resurrection, Thomas said: " Unless I see in his hands the print of the nails and stick my finger into the print of the nails and stick my hand into his side, I will certainly not believe" (John 20:25) So even though criminals sometimes were bound to a stake with ropes, Jesus was nailed. Some have also concluded from John 20:25 that two nails were used, one through each hand. But does Thomas' use of the plural (nail's) have to be understood as a precise description indicating that each of Jesus' hands was pierced by a separate nail?
In Luke 24:39 the resurrected Jesus said: "See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself." This suggests that Christ's feet also were nailed. Since Thomas made no mention of nail prints in Jesus' feet, his use of the plural "nail's" could have been a general reference to multiple nails used in impaling Jesus.
Thus, it just is not possible at this point to state with certainty how many nails were used. Any drawings of Jesus on the stake should be understood as artists' productions that offer merely a representation based on the limited facts that we have. Debate over such an insignificant detail should not be permitted to becloud the all-important truth that "we became reconciled to God through the death of his Son."- Romans 5:10."(italics for emphasis)
An appeal to the words of Thomas then cannot be used either to show what kind of stauros Jesus was executed upon or that the illustrations found in the WTB&TS publications are erroneous when they depict Jesus' 'hands' being affixed by just one nail.
On the history of the use of crucifixion in pre-Christian and Christian times, as a means to inflict torture and to execute, and how it was the most terrible way for a malefactor to end his life see here
On an online discussion board one poster stated in regard to the WTB&TS's use of works that discuss the Greek word Stauros and the form of execution of the crucifixion said:
QUOTE.......... MISQUOTE
"QUOTE.......... MISQUOTE: In its "Reasoning From the Scriptures" book, the Watchtower Society quotes from several sources to support their "torture stake" theory. These publications not only seem authoritative, but also seem to support the Society's claims regarding the "torture stake" rather than the traditional cross. However, unbeknown to many, the Watchtower Society has not been honest in its quotations of its sources. For example, one publication that the Society quotes in its "Reasoning..." book on page 89 is The Imperial Bible Dictionary. Below is the Watchtower quotation, with the words that they omitted in RED: "The Imperial Bible Dictionary acknowledges this, saying: "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. But a modification was introduced as the dominion and usages of Rome extended themselves through Greek-speaking countries. Even amongst the Romans, the crux (from which the word cross is derived) appears to have been originally an upright pole, and always remained the more prominent part. But from the time that it began to be used as an instrument of punishment, a traverse piece of wood was commonly added ... about the period of the Gospel Age, crucifixion was usually accomplished by suspending the criminal on a cross piece of wood." "-italics ours.
But this attempt at trying to malign the WTB&TS's use of this Bible Dictionary is easily put to the lie itself. For the poster omitted to tell his readers what the publication "Reasoning from the Scriptures"(p.89) said just before quoting the above named Dictionary. We can read his own omission which I will put in green: "The Greek word rendered "cross" in many modern Bible versions ("torture stake" in NWT) is stauros. In classical Greek, this word meant merely an upright stake, or pale. Later it also came to be used for an execution stake having a crosspiece. The Imperial Bible-Dictionary acknowledges....."- blue italics ours.Rather then the WTB&TS being "dishonest" it is the case that, sadly, the above poster has been. Notice also that this dictionary also said that the stauros being "originally an upright pole," "always remained the more prominent part." What we have read on this page already shows that though the Romans did indeed use two pieces of wood placed at right angles to each other to execute criminals we are still faced with the fact that the Bible wrtiters give no indication that in Jesus' case it was other than an upright stake.
The poster went on to state:
"On page 91 of the "Reasoning..." book the Society quotes from The Cross in Ritual, Architecture and Art by G. S. Tyack to show that the cross was originally used in pagan worship, but they do NOT go on to quote: "In all this, the Christians of the first age would have rejoiced, claiming it as a worldwide prophecv of the Cross of the Redeemer."
Of course, what the poster is not telling, again, his readers, is that this work(and three others found on p.91 of the Reasoning Book)was quoted under the heading "What were the historical origins of Christendom's cross?"(p.90) Hence, to quote Tyack here as saying "It is strange, yet unquestionably a fact, that in ages long before the birth of Christ, and since then in lands untouched by the teaching of the Church, the Cross has been used as a sacred symbol...The Greek Bacchus, the Tyrian Tammuz, the Chaldean Bel, and the Norse Odin, were all symbolised to their votaries by a cruciform device," was quite appropriate and fitting. However, the above remarks which Tyack followed up this "strange yet unquestionable fact" was just his opinion and one which was not based on any archaeological evidence whatsoever. We have already read that which Professor Graydon has written that the Christians in the early centuries did not use a "cross" in their worship or devotions.
The "Christians of the first age" certainly did not "rejoice" in any way at the pagans use of the cross as a symbol in their worship. It is as Vine correctly stated was the case that "By the middle of the 3rd cent. A.D. the churches had either departed from, or had travestied, certain doctrines of the Christian faith. In order to increase the prestige of the apostate ecclesiastical system pagans were recieved into the churches apart from regeneration of faith, and were permitted largely to retain their pagan signs and symbols. Hence the Tau or T, in it's most frequent form, with the cross-piece lowered, was adopted to stand for the cross of Christ"
It is very easy for a distractor of the NWT/WTB&TS to carp at a translation that he disagrees with. But it is sad when he does that which he falsely accuses the said Bible Society of doing. Being dishonest.
What of Jesus' words recorded for us by John at John 21:18,19:
"Most truly I say to you, When you were younger, you used to gird yourself and walk about where you wanted. But when you grow old you will stretch out your hands and another [man] will gird you and bear you where you do not wish." This he said to signify by what sort of death he would glorify God. So, when he had said this, he said to him: "Continue following me."-NWT.
In answer to a question as to whether this shows that Peter himself was 'crucified' on a cross or a stake a 'Question from Readers' article in The Watchtower of 1970, page 768 answered:
"John 21:18, 19 says concerning the apostle Peter: “‘When you were younger, you used to gird yourself and walk about where you wanted. But when you grow old you will stretch out your hands and another man will gird you and bear you where you do not wish.’ This [Jesus] said to signify by what sort of death [Peter] would glorify God.” Do these words specifically refer to a death by crucifixion or impalement?
"The ancient religious historian Eusebius reports that Peter “was crucified with his head downward, having requested of himself to suffer in this way.” However, Jesus’ prophecy regarding Peter’s death was not that specific. Acknowledges A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture: “As the extension of hands is set before girding and being led away, it is difficult to discern how it must be conceived. If the order is part of the prophecy, we must suppose the prisoner lashed to the patibulum before being girded and led out to execution.”
So, were it not for the tradition recorded by Eusebius, Jesus’ statement in itself would not point to a death by crucifixion or impalement. Viewing the words of John 21:18, 19 apart from tradition, we would come to the following conclusion: In his younger years Peter was able to gird himself at will for whatever duty he wanted to perform. He had the liberty to go where he wanted to go. But in later life this would change. He would have to stretch out his hands, perhaps in submission to someone else. Another man would take control of him, girding Peter (either binding him or preparing him for what was to come) and bearing him to a place where he did not want to go, evidently the place of execution. Thus Jesus’ prophecy regarding Peter indeed indicated that the apostle would die a martyr’s death; but the manner of this death is not necessarily implied."
In might be added that the word rendered "will gird,"in v.18, is ZWSEI (which is the future of ZWNNUMI) is also found at Acts 12:8 and is always used in the LXX(and in other Greek works generally) of girding on clothes or armour and there cannot be an instance cited for a use of it as to bind as a criminal. This, the former sense, might be the one it has in v.18 where Jesus says: .."When you were younger you used to gird(Gk: EZWNNUES "you were girding")" It may, again , have the same sense when Jesus uses it once more as we find in this same verse, "and another [man] will gird you." We may also compare this with DIEZWSATO(aorist middle DIAZWNNOMI) "to gird one's self by pulling up the tunic and allowing a fold to fall over the belt" at 21:7. John 21:18,19 does not tell us how Peter died just that his death glorified God- and it certainly cannot be used to show that Jesus died on a two beamed cross!
In support of this is what is written in A Bible Commentary for English Readers, editored by C.J.Elliott, Vol. VI, page 549:
"Thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee.-Do these words refer to the crucifixion of Peter? Tradition, from Tertullian downwards(Scorp. 15; De Praescr. 35), states that he was crucified, and, interpretating this prophecy by the evnt, asserts that they do. Tertullian himself so understood them, for he says, "Then is Peter girded by another when he is bound to the cross."
But on the other hand, (1) the girding(with chains) would precede, not follow, the crucifixion; (2) it would be more natural to speak of another stretching forth his hands if the nailing to them to the cross was intended; (3) the last clause, "carry thee whither thou wouldst not," could not follow the stretching of the hands on the transverse beam of the cross.
It seems impossible therefore to adopt the traditional reference to crucifixion, and we must take the words, "stretch forth your hands," as expressing symbolically the personal surrender previous to being girded by another. To what exact form of death the context does not specify. We have thus in the second pair of sentences, as in the first and third, a complete parellelism, the stretching forth of the hands being part of the girding by another, and the whole being in contrast to "Thou girdest thyself.""
And:
" "Stretch forth thy hands."[John 21:18] The allusion to the extending of the hands on the cross, which some interpreters have found here, is fanciful.”–Vincent’s Word Studies (italics for emphasis))
Psalms 22:14:
A poster on the JW board on CARM offered the following as "proof" that Jesus died upon a two-beamed cross rather than an upright stake(March 2003). He stated that where we read at Psalms 22:14 that "Verse 14 in particular is interesting in that He mentions that His bones are out of joint. On a crucifix when the wrists are nailed to the patibalum (cross-piece) and attached and raised onto the main pole, the victims arms would be extended up to six inches, causing dislocation. This is simply not possible on a 'torture stake."
Of course, v.14 reads "I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint; my heart is like wax"(New Revised Standard Version) What we have here is not a prophetic description of the literal anatomical condition of the Christ when dying on the STAUROS but is the employment by the Psalmist of "anatomical terms to indicate the nearness of death"(The New Interpreter's Bible, Volume 4, p.763). Yes, the Psalmist is using such imagery as A. A. Anderson also informs us:
"14. I am poured out like water: (cf. Jos. 7:15). This, and the following description in verses 14b-15, need not necessarily refer to the consequences of an illness, but it may denote the physical expressions of fear and anxiety. The above mentioned word-picture probably means that the Psalmist regards himself as good as dead.
all my bones are out of joint: this is a graphic description of utter helplessness, and is equivalent to 'paralysed with fear'.
my heart is like wax: the Psalmist has become greatly afraid and fainthearted(as in Dt. 20:8; Jos. 2:11)."-The New Century Bible Commentary, Psalms, Volume 1(1-72), Marshall, Morgan & Scott Publ. Ltd, London, Reprint of March 1992, pp.189, 190.-italics ours.
The imagery expressed by the words "all my bones are out of joint" indicates the "utter helplessness" of the Psalmist and has no bearing on whether his literal bones(note "all [his] bones" not just his shoulder bones!!) were "dislocated" just as the psalmists words "my heart is like wax" was not meant to be understood literally but is an illustration of the distressed condition of the heart.
Hence, the poster who has attempted to employ the figurative words of the Psalmist(regarding the Hebrew word here: "be divided, seperated, from each other,...of bones= be loosened at the joint, [Ps]22:15(fig[urative] of helplessness);..."-The New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew-English Lexicon) at Psalms 22:14 as he has done has actually misunderstood the intended meaning of them! This scripture does not in any way offer 'evidence,' and certainly not 'proof,' that the STAUROS that Jesus died upon was either a two-beamed one or an up-right stake.
A very early representation of the Crucifixion in which only the two thieves are bound to the stauros. The sun and moon are placed either side of Christ who stands in an attitude of prayer.
Would a 1st century Christian revere the implement that was used to execute their Lord Jesus? Should Christians today?
"Rather than consider the torture stake upon which Jesus was impaled a relic to be worshiped, the Jewish Christians like Simon Peter would consider it to be an abominable thing. At Galatians 3:13 the apostle Paul quotes Deuteronomy 21:23 and says:"It is written: "Accursed is every man hanged upon a stake."" Hence the Jewish Christians would hold as accursed and hateful the stake upon which Jesus had been executed. Says the celebrated Jewish authority, Moses Maimon'ides, of the 12th century: "They never hang upon a tree which clings to the soil by roots; but upon a timber uprooted, that it might not be an annoying plague: for a timber upon which anyone has been hanged is buried; that the evil name may not remain with it and people should say, "This is the timber on which so-and-so was hanged".So the stone with which anyone has been stoned; and the sword, with which the one killed has been killed; and the cloth or mantle with which anyone has been strangled; all these things are buried along with those who perished. Apud Casaub.in Baron. Exercitat. 16, An. 34, Num. 134) Says Kalinski in Vaticinia Observationibus Illustrata, page 342: "Consequently since a man hanged was considered the greatest abomination- the Jews also hated more than other things the timber on which he had been hanged, so that they covered it also with earth, as being equally an abominable thing."
If any would answer that they may hold the cross as dear but do not worship it, then we would answer: How is it that this pagan symbol, used in pagan religions before and after the 1st century can find any place in a Christians' life in the light of what Paul wrote at 2 Cor.6:14-18. Can a Christian 'employ' a pagan symbol when pagans revered it as an idol while still claiming his worship is pure of idolatry just because his religion does not use the cross as an 'idol'?
Many thanks to my friends for this contribution.
letusreason
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)