Crucifixion — torture stake or cross?

Question

The Jehovah's Witnesses state that Jesus was not nailed on a cross, but on a torture stake. The New World Translation of the Bible is phrased accordingly. For example:

Matthew 10:38 (NWT)
And whoever does not accept his torture stake and follow after me is not worthy of me.

(All the other translations (that I know of) translate cross instead.)

What is significant about the difference between a torture stake and a cross, and on which one was Jesus crucified?

---

An illustration of what might be a torture stake:

^{Crux Simplex by Justus Lipsius (1547-1606). Wikimedia Commons.}

Answer 1

There is comparatively little evidence in the NT for the shape of the object. There is not much etymological help from the Greek words σταυρός or ξύλον, which do not clearly indicate either shape. Some of the textual hints we do have are:

But [Thomas] said to them, “Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.” (John 20:25, NIV)

This suggests that there was more than one nail placed through the hands, which is more likely on a cross than on a stake - though I could imagine a nail through each hand, with the hands side by side. But the JWs assert that the plural is referring to two nails, one through both hands and the other through both feet. The Greek reads "ἐν ταῖς χερσὶν αὐτοῦ τὸν τύπον τῶν ἥλων", which is "in his hands the imprint of the nails", clearly linking multiple nails to the hands specifically.

Above his head they placed the written charge against him: THIS IS JESUS, THE KING OF THE JEWS. (Matthew 27:37, NIV)

If Jesus were crucified as in the picture, the sign would be obscured by his arms. If it were also placed above his hands, Matthew could have written "Above his hands..." - but he didn't.

Carrying his own cross, he went out to the place of the Skull, which in Aramaic is called Golgotha. (John 19:17, NIV)

Several different crucifixion methods were used by the Romans, including the traditional cross and the simple vertical stake. But the reference to carrying suggests that Jesus carried the crossbeam or patibulum of his cross - contemporary sources indicated that condemned people could be made to carry their own patibulum, but not the entire cross or stake, and of course a stake has no crossbeam at all. (Now-familiar depictions of Jesus carrying the whole cross come along later.)

It is common ground between Jehovah's Witnesses and the rest of us that for most of Christian history, Christ's crucifixion has almost always been regarded as being on a cross. The problem that the JWs have with it is that they think that the cross is a pagan symbol which was mistakenly (or maliciously) adopted early on in Christian history, as Christian belief and practice departed from its original form. As a restorationist group, they believe that in rejecting the cross shape they are returning to Christianity as it was meant to be. Insistence on the 'torture stake' is not particularly important in itself, but it is a prominent reminder of their distinctiveness, and of the error into which they think others have fallen.

Answer 2

I'd like to remark that the linguistic arguments of Jehovah's witnesses are based on the fact that is not certain if Jesus died either on a (single) torture stake or a (tradinally shaped) cross. Rather they feel the language used in the NT is not sufficiently clear on this point. Therefore they stick with the basic meaning of the NT word (stauros) as a 'torture stake'. By translating it with a 'cross', they feel they risk adding something to the word which might not be intended by the original authors in the first century.

Recently, there has been a Ph.D. study published about this very subject. The author basically agrees with this linguistic argument of Jehovah's witnesses.

Gunnar Samuelsson, Crucifixion in Antiquity. An Inquiry into the Background of the New Testament Terminology of Crucifixion, 2010, 413 p. (published in 2011).

• A short outline of the book's content

The author investigates the philological aspects of how ancient Greek, Latin, Hebrew, and Aramaic texts, including the New Testament, depict the practice of punishment by crucifixion. A survey of the ancient text material shows that there has been a too narrow a view of the “crucifixion” terminology. The various terms are not simply used in the sense of “crucify” and “cross,” if by “crucifixion” one means the punishment that Jesus was subjected to according to the main Christian traditions. The terminology is used much more diversely. Almost none of it can be elucidated beyond verbs referring vaguely to some form(s) of suspension, and nouns referring to tools used in such suspension. As a result, most of the crucifixion accounts that scholars cite in the ancient literature have to be rejected, leaving only a few.

The New Testament is not spared from this terminological ambiguity. The accounts of the death of Jesus are strikingly sparse. Their chief contribution is usage of the unclear terminology in question. Over-interpretation, and probably even pure imagination, have afflicted nearly every dictionary that deals with the terms related to crucifixion as well as scholarly depictions of what happened on Calvary. The immense knowledge of the punishment of crucifixion in general, and the execution of Jesus in particular, cannot be supported by the studied texts.”

• Own website

Since the author was frequently quoted in the media as a person who doubted the crucifiction of Jesus, the author, who is not a Jehovah's witness but a protestant pastor, has his own website in which he tries to take away some misconceptions.

See http://www.exegetics.org/

See also for general information: Wikipedia.

Answer 3

Here are links to official material published by Jehovah's Witnesses which you can read online about this topic:

Why True Christians Do Not Use the Cross in Worship

Reasoning from the Scriptures: Cross

Insight on the Scriptures: Torture Stake

I recommend reading some of these for a more in depth, and rounded out answer with references to back up their claims. What follows is a summary of some of the important concepts from these sources. The Greek word stau·ros′ is usually translated "cross" in most English Bible translations. However this word originally meant an upright stake or pale. The word did not imply the idea of a second piece of timber. Some other parts of the Bible refer to the instrument of Jesus execution with the Greek word xy′lon. (Acts 5:30; 10:39; 13:29; Galatians 3:13; 1 Peter 2:24) This word can mean timber, a stick, club, tree, or stake. The Bible shows that Jesus died on a stake at Galatians 3:13 where the Apostle Paul quotes Deuteronomy 21:22, 23. The cross as a religious symbol is pagan in origin. It was used extensively as a religious symbol in pre-Christian times. The Roman emperor Constantine promoted the cross as the symbol for Christianity. Apparently, this was done to make it easier for pagans to accept "Christianity." God's word condemns the use of pagan idols and all forms of idolatry. (2 Corinthians 6:14-18; Exodus 20:4,5; 1 Corinthians 10:14)