crucifixion poles and the like

Page 1 of 1 (10 items)
This post has 9 Replies | 0 Followers

Posts 610
Dave Thawley | Forum Activity | Posted: Wed, Mar 14 2018 2:22 PM

I am talking to a JW (God has decided to sit us together in my day Job). I like him and I love the way he is very much into the bible but he has starting talking about poles instead of crosses and the like. I was wondering if there are any good resources I could use to argue a case against some of his positions. I have had a search on line for archaeology and crucifixion but I was wondering if there was a book I could read that would point me in the right direction.  

Posts 610
Dave Thawley | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Mar 14 2018 3:45 PM

ahh, brilliant. Thanks for this

Posts 365
Robert Neely | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Mar 14 2018 4:44 PM

On What Type of Cross Was Jesus Crucified? Seneca states (De consolatione ad Marciam 20.3): “I see crosses there, not just of one kind but fashioned in many different ways: Some have their victims with head down toward the ground; some impale their private parts; others stretch out their arms on the crossbeam.” Josephus (War 5.11.1; #451) reports that the Roman soldiers under Titus nailed their prisoners in different postures. Occasionally just an upright stake was used, and the condemned’s hands were raised vertically and nailed extended above his head. (This is not what happened in Jesus’ case, since he carried a cross[beam] to the place of execution.) Where a mass crucifixion took place, sometimes a number of criminals were affixed to something resembling a scaffold or tympanum—a panel of vertical planks. The 5th-cent. depiction of the crucifixion of Jesus on the portal of St. Sabina in Rome shows a type of scaffold. Because of the assumption that the two criminals mentioned on either side of Jesus were all who were crucified on Golgotha, in the present scene three individual crosses are usually imagined. While there was an X-shaped cross (crux decussata, “crooked”), the fact that Jesus carried a cross(beam) has usually eliminated that from the discussion. If the vertical post already stood at Skull-Place, the crossbeam could have been attached to it in one of two ways. A V-shaped notch was sometimes cut into the very top of the upright post and the crossbeam laid in that, giving the shape of a T (crux commissa) in which no part of the cross rose above the crucified one’s head. Barnabas 9:8 assumes that Jesus was crucified on a tau-shaped cross, and Justin (Dialogue 91.2) describes the crossbeam being fitted into the topmost extremity of the upright, an area shaped like a horn. (Justin, however, is interested in the fulfillment of an OT passage dealing with horns that may have guided his description.) Another type of cross was formed if a notch was cut horizontally into the side of the standing pole at some distance from the top, and the crossbeam inserted into that, giving the shape of an elongated plus sign (†, the crux immissa). This would be a cross with four arms; it is assumed by Irenaeus (Adv. haereses 2.24.4), who by adding a seat or buttocks-rest to it speaks of five extremities. Tertullian (Ad nationes 1.12.7; CC 1.31) compares Jesus’ cross to an erect man standing with arms stretched out. This has been the favorite cross of Christian art because Matt 27:37 mentions that “they put up above his head the charge” (see Luke 23:38).
How high from the ground did a cross stand? We find the expression “to go up on the cross” (anabainein, epibainein, ascendere). Often the cross was low enough for animals to ravage the feet of the crucified, which may have been only a foot off the ground. Suetonius (Galba 9.1) reports that a man who claimed to be a Roman citizen was mockingly hung higher than the rest. Three of the evangelists imagine that a reed or hyssop was needed to raise a sponge full of common wine to Jesus’ lips. A common guess is that Jesus’ cross stood some 7 ft. high.


Raymond E. Brown, The Death of the Messiah and 2: From Gethsemane to the Grave, a Commentary on the Passion Narratives in the Four Gospels, vol. 1 (New York; London: Yale University Press, 1994), 947–949.

Posts 943
Everett Headley | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Mar 14 2018 4:54 PM

While it isn't about the archaeology so much as historical context, it is the best resource I have read on it:

https://www.logos.com/product/30913/crucifixion-in-the-ancient-world-and-the-folly-of-the-message-of-the-cross 

Posts 589
Ted Weis | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Mar 14 2018 5:11 PM

Everett Headley:

While it isn't about the archaeology so much as historical context, it is the best resource I have read on it:

https://www.logos.com/product/30913/crucifixion-in-the-ancient-world-and-the-folly-of-the-message-of-the-cross 

As we get closer to Easter, that resource and others like it might go on sale, as they have in the past.

Posts 6219
DAL | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Mar 14 2018 5:35 PM

Look on google and Rutherford, Russell’s successor, always drew images of crosses in one of his books he wrote. I showed that to a JW couple I studied with and they said that was “apostate material.” So sometimes they don’t listen, due to their “light getting brighter” (revelation) doctrine. So what was taught in the past doesn’t count if it contradicts their present doctrine.

Don’t give up!

DAL

Posts 10033
Denise | Forum Activity | Replied: Wed, Mar 14 2018 5:58 PM

DAL:

Look on google and  ....

My googling of JW brought up the sacred poles. Whoa. The implication was the jewish women were really turned on (2 Kings). But quite creative, I suppose.


Posts 610
Dave Thawley | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Mar 15 2018 6:14 AM

Thanks for all of the suggestions. I will dig deeper. I have purchased the suggested resources and they all look very good so thanks for the tips. I will have a look on the net as well :-)  

Posts 610
Dave Thawley | Forum Activity | Replied: Thu, Mar 15 2018 6:18 AM

DAL:

Look on google and Rutherford, Russell’s successor, always drew images of crosses in one of his books he wrote. I showed that to a JW couple I studied with and they said that was “apostate material.” So sometimes they don’t listen, due to their “light getting brighter” (revelation) doctrine. So what was taught in the past doesn’t count if it contradicts their present doctrine.

Don’t give up!

DAL

So they are absolutely positive that what the believe now is "gospel" as it were ?, or I wounder if they think that it is likely to change in the future. 

Page 1 of 1 (10 items) | RSS