Talk:Instrument of Jesus' crucifixion/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Unsatisfactory references

I believe the quoted references are not satisfactory. First they are from anti-witness source which straight away introduce NPOV. The reference basically quote witness theology regarding the cross and then rebuffs it. If these sources are to be used they should be used as a criticism of these beliefs not to support them!! Lunacy!

Ideally a watchtower reference is needed for text defining beliefs. Jamie 17:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

yes, better references is needed, but it is not OR, i can know it after having many JW proudly asserting this view to me. --Striver 23:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like your modivation for this article is your biased interactions with your enemies. This is an Encyclopedia and the wrong form for your pride bashing. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 07:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Nom for deletion

This article is unnecessary. It only makes one point (i.e., that Jesus was supposedly crucified on a stake), which is already included in the articles Jehovah's Witnesses, Doctrines of Jehovah's Witnesses and Controversies regarding Jehovah's Witnesses. BenC7 12:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

this article is unbalanced. it is very heavy against JW belief even though the title suggests it will explain JW beliefs it does not. I will attempt to repair.

Needs references : Josephus reported seeing hundreds of victims that were crucified simultaneously

Any proof of that ?

The author should quote Josephus to confirm what he writes. Otherwise that sentence should be removed.

What I found on my part, in the accounts of "crucifixion" by Josephus is that : "But the best men, and those of the noblest souls, did not regard him, but did pay a greater respect to the customs of their country than concern as to the punishment which he threatened to the disobedient; on which account they every day underwent great miseries and bitter torments; for they were whipped with rods, and their bodies were torn to pieces, and were crucified, while they were still alive, and breathed. " (Book 12, Chapter 5, Paragraph 4 or Book 12, 255)

But the word used here by Josephus for "crucified" is, guess what, "anestaurômenôn" which contains the word "stauros" of course. And as the article says, the word "stauros" basically means "a pole".

Look at Jewish antiquities in greek, searche for the word "anestaurômenôn", the online lexicon assiocated gives as definition for this word : "to impale".

--Bartol78 23:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for exposing the deception; quoting Jews to support anti-JW beliefs seems very biased indeed. This writer is using the word crucified at every opportunity instead of impale to insinuate their point of view is the only correct view. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 06:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses don't lie, other so-called Christians do (Ho Theon/theos - John 1:1)

It strikes me that everyone who voted on deletion for this long ago did so because they didn't care about the subject and on the other hand the people who chose to keep it have very anti-Jehovah's-Witnesses biases in their comments, just as the article itself is written. Jehovah's witnesses don't care what you write about them unless it is outright slander or libel. So the third catagory was of course missing; there were no Jehovah's witnesses who were in favor of keeping this article to have thier view considered sans the bias of fanatically anti-Jehovah's-Witness. As it stands, without the appropriate citations or references it is nothing more than anti-Jehovah's-Witness propaganda. Case in point, the reference to the description of a cross by a Jewish historian. It is moot as the it is the Latin Crux that is being considered there not the Greek Stauros, which is the real issue. Greek Stauros means Stake: what more need be said, unless you call Bible writers liers. I am neither JW or Christian, but I know deception when I see it. Once it is admitted what the original greek says, then it doesn't matter what the (fraudulent) Latin translations say about it. And that's what makes this article biased and useless, clearly written by anti-JWs. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 06:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Is this article and vote not lacking in a bias and sockpuppet check?

Is this article and vote not lacking in a bias and sockpuppet check?
GabrielVelasquez (talk) 07:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

one Watchtower magazine is not enough!

I studied with these people and I know you would be lucky and glad to have them writing for this Encyclopedia.
I am not a Christian nor a JW (no religious bias), but I know for a fact how thorough their referencing and verification of fact is.
As they publish their own referenced encyclopedia and publish the Watchtower magazine on a bi-monthly basis,
one Wachtower magazine issue as a reference here is a joke, and obvious evidence of bias here.
GabrielVelasquez (talk) 07:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

bias evidence

Notice that the box has a link to the islamic view of Jesus, but there is a non-link right under it for "Jehovah's Witnesses" which is tantamount to an admission of a block on Jehovah's Witnesses.
GabrielVelasquez (talk) 08:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

The editor using ISP 64.222.201.18 (Verizon Internet Services Inc., Reston, Virginia, USA) seems to claim that only the Jehovah's Witnesses' view should be given, without any indication of value judgements by others on those views ("it is a statement of belief; it needs no counterpoint; the beliefs of other sects are entirely irrelevant, as this article is not a pissing match between sects, but merely a statement of JW beliefs"). Wikipedia is not a vehicle for giving one-sided views on anything. Neutral Point of View (NPOV) is a fundamental Wikimedia principle. For a one-sided Jehovah's Witnesses' view it would be enough to give a link to a Jehovah's Witnesses' source, and the article gives one such link, namely to a page on a 1992 issue of The Watchtower; but Wikipedia does not exist for giving such one-sided points of view. If there is to be a Wikipedia article on this matter, the views of others on the claims by Jehovah's Witnesses must also be presented, in order to preserve NPOV. The article does not have to list other views on the manner of Jesus' death, but it does have to give the views of others on the Jehovah's Witnesses' claims. Lima (talk) 09:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Have you actually read the article title? And why are you posting my ISP? Is this some sort of bizarre trial? You are clearly pushing an anti-JW agenda. I'm an atheist who came to the article to be educated and found it severely biased against JW. Well guess what? I'm biased against them, too. But I don't want to read bias in an encyclopedia. I attempted to remedy that bias, and you've tried to reinsert it at every turn. I'm not going to simply let you get away with your sectarian nonsense, I'm going to keep pushing for NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.222.201.18 (talk) 09:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I have read the article title. It does not say "Jehovah's Witnesses view of Jesus' death, as seen by Jehovah's Witnesses only". I have also read the section title. It says "Arguments", not "Jehovah's Witnesses' arguments as seen only by themselves". NPOV involves presenting also contrary views, reliably sourced. But I leave your revert untouched until someone else intervenes. Lima (talk) 11:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of the article isn't only to explain what the belief is, the article should help the reader understand why Jehovah's Witnesses believe what they do and why others might disagree. However, the way that it was stated before the revert was not well summarized neutral language. I think that all views should be represented. I also think that the article might do better by merging into a more general beliefs article. It may be an important and differentiating belief, but there is only so much to say about it without rambling. --B F^izz _(e•t•c) 18:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Would 64.222.201.18 agree to de-revert and then work together to find a more neutral way of summarizing the pertinent sourced information, instead of just deleting it? Lima (talk) 18:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

My problem is that most of that other material is irrelevant. The problem with WP is that everything is allowed as long as it's sourced. That creates rambling articles that deviate wildly from the subject; in this case, the views of JW regarding Jesus' execution. I frankly don't see why a person coming to this article for that information needs to or would want to read a bunch of sectarian counter beliefs. The article read something like this:

JW believe X. Ah, but every other xian dismisses such nonsense, and here's why they're right and JW are wrong.

My reaction to that is to gut the article of all that foolishness. Go to a religious debate forum if you want to argue about whether or not the JW beliefs are "right." This is an encyclopedic article, meant to educate the reader as to JW beliefs. I don't understand why this is so difficult to understand.

Also, speculation by source authors is not evidence of anything. It was fairly maddening to have to keep deleting that. A fanciful drawing of a man on a cross does not prove he was executed on a cross. That particular specimen provides nothing conclusive as to arm position, but rather proves a foot position that is actually rather different from the traditional depictions of Jesus (heels nailed from the side, to the sides of the upright beam). For all we know the arms could have been similarly nailed -- but that would also be irrelevant speculation. 64.222.201.18 (talk) 23:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

As a 3rd opinion: this article is about JW beliefs, so it doesn't seem necessary to me to go into detailed comparisons to other groups beliefs, (just simply state the JW beliefs) but some comparisons might be briefly included. The article Cross or stake as gibbet on which Jesus died seems to give lots of comparisons on the same topic, without the stress on JW beliefs. It's possible that this article could be merged into that one.

I'll suggest that there is no reason to post ISP addresses, and everyone should remember WP:AGF. Also the article looks a little long, unless you just want to re-do Cross or stake as gibbet on which Jesus died. The references should be improved, e.g. not to Primary sources, or just removed if the article is shortened.

Hope this helps.

Smallbones (talk) 22:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

It does help. Thanks for your objective input. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.222.201.18 (talk) 23:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Smallbones that I shouldn't have specified where the IP was situated (for this I apologize) and that there is no need to describe other views (this I have already stated). But does Smallbones really hold that the JW views should simply be stated here without any indication of the objective grounds on which those views have been criticized as ill-founded? That is the point of dispute here. Lima (talk) 03:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Glad that there is some agreement here! I'm slightly out of my depth in religious matters, but I'll suggest that "objective grounds" in any religious dispute can be very slippery. Some of those criticisms might go in here - but briefly. They certainly shouldn't dominate the article. Some of the criticisms might also go in the longer article. I'm thinking about the old saying "There's no arguing about taste." Some people like the taste of broccolli, and some people don't - why argue about it? It's more important to remember, at least for an encyclopedia, that there's no arguing about faiths. Some people have one set of beliefs that constitute a faith (unprovable by definition) and other people have another set of beliefs that constitute their faith. We can't say (as an encyclopedia) which is right, we can only list (and document with sources) what the articles of the faith are. Comparing and contrasting is dangerous, simply because we can never come to a conclusion as to which is right. "Objective grounds" for an event that happened 2000 years ago are few and far between, and open to interpretation.

Sorry for the lecture, I'll withdraw now. Smallbones (talk) 18:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Is this revision OK? Lima (talk) 19:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

(It's me, Verizon; my IP changed.) I've altered it a bit, and can live with it now. It's important to me that the pure speculation as to arm position in that specimen not be inflated or interpreted as factual, because it is not.

I have a big problem with this line: The Bible speaks of the gibbet on which Christ died as being "God's power" for Christians. First of all, it is dependent on Biblical interpretation, which is a huge can of worms that should be avoided. Secondly, even if the interpretation is accepted by the majority, it does nothing to illuminate JW beliefs, which is the subject of the article. Including it smacks of pure sectarian squabbling: "JW beliefs are wrong, see, the Bible says so!" I've resisted removing it because I don't want to spend my life trying to keep POV out of an article that frankly doesn't interest me that much. I will appeal to the objectivity and honesty of other editors to remove that line if they agree with me that it has no place in this article. Otherwise, I'll leave the article to revert to sectarian JW-bashing as soon as the dust settles. 64.222.222.133 (talk)

Thank you. Your second point, about interpretation of 1 Cor 1:17-18 (whose meaning I thought was clear) requires a change to a report of what a secondary source says of that passage (to which you are free to add a report of what some other secondary source says of it). As for the alterations you made, "rare" is very inexact for "only"; and if the phrase "no conclusive evidence of arm position is provided by the evidence in that case" is to be inserted, it must be supported by some source, not given merely as your opinion. Lima (talk) 04:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

That's ironic: I swapped "rare" for "only" because the latter was unsourced. I figured "rare" was safer wording.

As to my "insertion" requiring evidence, the source is the evidence! Did you actually read it, or just look at the pretty pictures? It speculates as to arm position, there is no evidence of it there. As much as I want to run away from this article with my hands in the air, I fear I am going to have to police it to make sure you don't insist on inserting lies into it.

And I don't care what Corinthians says, this is about what JW say. Why can't you understand this. 64.222.222.133 (talk)

I really wish that whole bit about Paul, with the Bible quotes, could be removed. It is infuriating to see an editor using Bible verses to discredit the beliefs of JW, which are the whole point of the article. It would be like quoting the NWT to discredit Catholicism. 64.222.222.133 (talk)

"The source is the evidence." The source does not say: "No conclusive evidence of arm position is provided by the evidence in that case". This is just a statement of your personal interpretation of the source.

As you are interested in a JW claim (seemingly affirmed only by themselves) about the significance of the cross/torture-stake for Christians, what one of the earliest writings in the New Testament says on the same topic ought indeed to interest you and anyone else interested in the JW claim. The comment is based on the JWs' own NWT, but with the paraphrase "the gibbet on which Christ died" in place of POV "torture stake" (or POV "cross"): the entire Gal 6:14 NWT verse is "Never may it occur that I should boast, except in the torture stake of our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom the world has been impaled to me and I to the world." Lima (talk) 12:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

"The source does not say: 'No conclusive evidence of arm position is provided by the evidence in that case'. This is just a statement of your personal interpretation of the source."

No, it is not just my interpretation! The source provides no conclusive evidence as to arm position!!! 64.222.222.133 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 15:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Quote the words with which any source (anybody else but you) says that "the source provides no conclusive evidence as to arm position". Read WP:NOR and especially WP:BURDEN. Lima (talk) 16:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

You don't seem to get it. YOU are editing the article to imply that the source says something that it DOES NOT SAY. Since I've been unsuccessful in persuading you not to do this, or in blocking you from doing it, my only recourse is to state the obvious: that the article being used to promote a certain sectarian religious agenda does not in fact support that agenda. Are we clear now?

"Jehovah's Witnesses claim that the torture stake (or cross) was insignificant and should not be used in worship." The material after that line should be deleted. There need be no response to the JW beliefs from any other sectarian POV. It is a statement of belief, not a debate about Bible interpretation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.222.222.133 (talk) 15:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Apart from being obvious in itself (but to state this, as you want to do in the above matter, is not acceptable in a Wikipedia article), the meaning of what Paul says is specified by the Bible commentaries that are cited. Why not quote at least one source to support your understanding of the other question? Lima (talk) 16:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I need a source to prove that this is an article about JW beliefs, rather than a sectarian Christian debate forum?

Renewed appeal for comments

I have asked the editor who was previously kind enough to give a third opinion to return or get someone else to intervene. As I see it, there are at present two points of dispute:

1. Does Wikipedia admit an article such as Anonymous calls for, namely one that gives only the views of a particular group (Jehovah's Witnesses), with no indication that these views are contradicted by others? I thought that this had been settled in the sense that indications of the contradictory views could be given but only in proportionate length. Reducing the article to a mere statement of Jehovah's Witnesses views (based on a single page of a periodical to which most of us have no access) seems unworthy of an encyclopaedia.
2. Is it legitimate to insert in the article Anonymous's phrase "however no conclusive evidence of arm position is provided by the evidence in that case" without citing a source for this judgement? Googling the two words, "crucifixion" "archaeology", brings up many articles that clearly indicate experts' views that the crucified man's arms were attached to a cross-beam; but, as far as I can see, none of them states what Anonymous wants to include. By the way, Yigael Yadin, one of the experts, cannot be accused of being part of "a sectarian Christian debate forum". Lima (talk) 04:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Lima: The problem I have with your efforts is that they seemed to be intended to paint JW beliefs as being somehow "wrong," which they cannot be since all Christian sectarian beliefs are based on various interpretations of the same texts. The futility of arguing their (in)correctness is evidenced by the existence of so many interpretations. This article is meant to outline the interpretations of one sect. It is somewhat different than most other WP articles; there need be no opposing viewpoints presented, since religious beliefs are not statements of fact. Where a statement of fact is made (e.g., the meaning of the ancient Greek), a counter point is warranted -- and is included here. To present the beliefs of other sects would not advance the subject matter, and would open the door to statements of belief from every single sect and religion under the sun, which would turn the article into something else entirely (i.e., a religious debate forum).

The sentence of mine with which you take issue is sourced, by the very same source you've been using to assert arm position where no such evidence is presented. Show me where in that source that arm position is evidenced by anything more than artistic imagination. If you're going to insist on using that source to prove arm position, then I'm going to have to insist on stating the obvious: that no such evidence is given in that source. Since that source is relevant only because of its drawings, then my sentence, or some rephrasing of it, is going to be warranted as long as that source remains part of the article. 64.222.222.133 (talk)

User:Lima asked me to return. I'd thought my comments above were pretty clear - there was too much criticism of the JW beliefs. To show exactly what I mean, I've cut out most (but probably not all) of the excess criticism. I'll ask the anon editor to review the article for content and take out anything else that strikes him as intended solely to criticize the JW beliefs, rather than to clarify what the beliefs are. In short please state in this article what the beliefs are, and very brief critcisms can be included as long as they clarify what the beliefs are and how they differ from other "standard" beliefs, but should not overwhelm the article.

Sorry that as a 3rd Opinion provider, it might seem that I've taken sides, but I think I provided very clear advice (that seems to have been misused) and then withdrew. Now that Lima has asked me back, I'm not acting as a 3O provider, but as an ordinary editor who doesn't agree with Lima.

Smallbones (talk) 13:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Smallbones: thank you for your efforts. I think you've hit upon the best solution, which is to strip the article down to what it claims to be: an outline of the Jehovah's Witnesses views on the execution of Jesus of Nazareth. I hope others will adhere to the article's very simple purpose, because I'd rather not police it. 21:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Request for help

In order to put an end to recent edit warring, I've created a terrible image of Jesus being executed on a stake, but I can't upload it here due to user-level restrictions. I've uploaded it to Wikimedia and am requesting that a helpful editor with proper permissions transfer it to Wikipedia so it can be used in this article. If someone has artistic skills, a proper image would be even more appreciated. A representation of an execution on a stake is extremely beneficial to this article, in my judgment, but another editor has taken issue with the Justus Lipsius illustration. My childish attempt is here. Thanks in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.214.138 (talk) 12:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Better, a JW image. Lima (talk) 16:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Peter

Does anyone know what Jehova's think about the crucifixion of Peter? Was he upside down on a pole? KEK (talk) 08:54, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

A Jehovah's Witness would probably note that there is only one Jehovah, perhaps citing Deuteronomy 6:4, "Jehovah our God is one Jehovah" and mentioning that Jesus himself quoted this verse at Mark 12:29.

This Talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, rather than for general "Talk".

--AuthorityTam (talk) 19:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

"Impale"

The source quoted does not use the word "impale", which is very strange in this context. The word "impale", which is derived from Latin pālus (stake), means "to pierce with a sharp stake or point" (The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000). A person can be "impaled on a stake" if he is pushed on to its point. Since the stake the Jehovah's Witnesses have in mind seems not to be pointed, or at least not to have been used for piercing the body of Jesus, would it not be better to use "fastened" or "pierced" or some such word, rather than "impaled", for what was done to his hands (in the sense of the Greek word χεῖρες) and his feet? Lima (talk) 19:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Forgive my strong language, but the above complaint is silly and unworthy of an entire "Talk" section.

Most or many Christians recognize that Jesus was "impaled", understanding such penetration to have been through the hands [and feet] rather than the victim's torso.

If certain "editors" are confused by that perfectly acceptable use of the term "impaled", just replace it with one you think is better. I've done that now: instead of "impaled", it now says "nailed", as follows:

"The Jehovah's Witnesses view of Jesus' death is that Jesus was impaled (that is, his hands and probably feet were nailed) on an upright stake or pole, and not on a cross (that is, not on a stake with a crossbeam for splaying the arms)."

This isn't rocket science. The interim edit, that Jesus was "fastened" to the stauros, seems unnecessarily to avoid the explicit method of "fastening". His extremities were nailed, with nails impaling his hands and probably feet.

--AuthorityTam (talk) 19:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

While "nailed" or the more generic "fastened" seem better to me, I will not stand in the way of AuthorityTam's insistence on using "impaled", a word whose original and normal meaning is "to pierce with a sharp stake", in connection with the picture of Jesus on (not pierced by) a σταυρός, whose original meaning, but by the first century AD seemingly no longer its normal meaning, was "a stake". Lima (talk) 12:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Bias

The article is biased now, because, it's name is "Jehovah's Witnesses view of Jesus' death", but not "Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses view of Jesus' death". Of course there is a need of such a criticism, but now it is a most of the article and virtually no argument on JW's side is presented. 89.110.8.15 (talk) 12:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The obvious solution is for someone (why not you yourself?) to present arguments in favour of the JW view. If Wikipedia were a JW publication, it would rightly do no more than expound the JW view. But Wikipedia is not a JW publication. So when Wikipedia informs about the JW view, it must state what the view is, but it cannot present it as unquestioned truth. For instance, JWs hold that "archaeology shows that Jesus died on a stake, not a cross". The article states this. What is missing is an indication of what that archaeological evidence is. Until someone adds an indication of what archaeological evidence shows that Jesus was executed on a simple stake, the only archaeological evidence cited must be that of the remains of a man who was crucified in Palestine in the same century as Jesus, and who seems to have died on a cross with crossbeam, not on a simple stake. Esoglou (talk) 15:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, at this issue (archeology) I agree with you. Unfortunatelly, my English is not excelent, so I'm not sure, that I can realy improve the article by my own efforts.

Also I've got your point that Wiki is not a JW pub. Belive me, I understand this. But now the article appears this way: "1) JW teach this thing, but 2) it's not right, because of this, that and that." What do you think (not personally you, Esoglou, but, all the editors of this article), can we insert some information in support of Witnesses' position? And maybe it's not necessary in this encyclopaedic article to disprove every statement made by JW? 89.110.13.209 (talk) 20:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

If the JW view on the death of Jesus includes a documented claim about archeological support for the stake thesis, an encyclopedic article on their view should mention the claim. It should also briefly evaluate the claim: otherwise the article would not be encyclopedic. It would indeed be good if someone would insert information in support of this claim. Unfortunately, I know of none to insert. But surely some supporter of the claim should be able to do so. Even if only in imperfect English. Esoglou (talk) 08:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Another and perhaps better solution would be to merge this article into Dispute about the shape of the gibbet of Jesus. Esoglou (talk) 10:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, as a life-long Jehovah's Witness, and a long time Wikipedian, I'd argue that the article is very neutral. In fact, a little more critical response to the claims of JWs might be needed in order to truly provide a NPOV. fr33kman ^-simpleWP- 03:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I only just became aware of this article. I don't have time at the moment, but I'll be doing a major copyedit in the coming days.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:09, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Merge

On consideration, this article is clearly a content fork of Dispute about Jesus' execution method, and only makes a single point. I see no good reason not to merge and redirect to the main article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:52, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Esoglou (talk) 05:45, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

It seems that everything of note is already in the other article. If no serious justification for retaining this article is provided in the the next few days, I will redirect to the main article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:28, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I support the redirect. The history of this article can be gleaned if relevant sections of the main article are to be expanded. ...comments? ~BFizz 21:54, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Cross information overwhelming?

I was watching the history channel the other day, it was about Roman torture, and they claimed that it probably wasn't a cross that Jesus died on. However, this article hardly shows any evidence to support that. The "Use of these words before the time of Constantine" has no examples of the use referring to single beam, but constantly sites Italian and Roman Catholic authors from centuries later, claiming that they would know since they are somewhat "closer in date" than parties unidentified in the article. The article seems overwhelmingly biased toward the cross side of the debate, with only the most minimum information as possible given to the stake theory. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 15:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Several of the writers quoted, who lived at a time when crucifixion was still in use, and not "centuries later", were Greek, not Roman ("Italian" is an anachronism, as is "Roman Catholic": there was as yet no distinction between Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox or, for that matter, Oriental Orthodox.) The reason that the article gives no example of a writer close to the time of Jesus who suggested that the cross Jesus died on was a single upright beam is that no writer of that time did suggest it. You have to wait until about the year 1900 for that idea. Constantine is mentioned only because a certain modern group claims that not before his time (fourth century) did Christians begin to associate the death of Jesus with a cross. The article quotes writers who lived at least a century or two before Constantine's reign who show that this is not true. If you can find even one writer of that period who says Jesus died on a single beam, that would make a very interesting addition to the article. Lima (talk) 18:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I meant centuries after Jesus died. Forgive me, I thought the root of the confuse stemmed from Latin claims that a cross was used and Greek ambiguity; I thought the Greeks didn't distinguish the difference between a cross and a stake. This leads me to the question: if Greeks in the 1st and 2nd century were able to make the distinction between a stake and a cross, why didn't the Biblical Greek writers? Also, as I brought out earlier, why is there so little information about the stake side of the debate? This is, after all, an article about the debate over which was used, not about which argument has the most supporters. Also, I'd like to note that some parts of the article seem contradictory. The "Terminology" section begins by saying that the 'following words in Greek mean "cross"', but then goes to say that the words are too ambiguous to know for sure. Something else I'd like to ask about, I hear talk about the Cross being a pre-Christian "pagan symbol" but nobody gets specific. I looked it up on the Christian Cross article, didn't find anything. I know about its Norse and Egyptian uses, but what did the Romans use it for? Also, I've heard that the Jews in Jerusalem wouldn't even let banners with images of the emperor into the city, why would they allow huge "idols" in the area? --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 03:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

You were right in your observation about the use of the phrase "the cross of Jesus" in the Terminology section. I have changed this perhaps question-begging expression into "what Jesus died on", in order to preserve the necessary ambiguity.

It is by what they said about it, not by the words (as such) that they used (such as σταυρός) that the earliest writers in Greek about what Jesus died on showed that they envisaged it as having a cross-beam. They compared it to the letter T (Letter of Barnabas, Origen, Clement of Alexandria), to a man with outstretched hands (Epistle of Barnabas, Justin, Hippolytus), to the customary way of roasting a lamb, with two wooden spits forming a cross (Justin), or to a whole series of cross-shaped objects (Justin); or they said it had five extremities, the fifth being that of the sedile (Irenaeus). It seems that not one described it as shaped like a single stake. Lima (talk) 08:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, cross information is overwhealming, or rather not so overwhealming, as unneutral. The article has a name "Cross or stake...", but when we comapare how space for arguments is divided, it's clear, that the article is unneutral or even biased. My suggestion is to delete some material, which it supposed to support cross theory and cite some more sources for stake one (or rather return them). ShiftWokl (talk) 23:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Modern opinions on both sides are easy to find, but the evidence of early Christians is overwhelming. Several early Christians left evidence that they thought of Jesus' gibbet was a cross with arms. If someone could find evidence that even one early Christian thought it had the form of a single upright post, that would be very interesting. Lima (talk) 05:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Modern opinions and early Christians

Do we have an obligation to spend so much space citing only "early Christians"? Why, for example, not to cite Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words about the subject? Probably, this can explain the motive, why we found such thoughts in Church Fathers... Anyway, it's trustworthy source, which is concerned with article's subject.

If speaking about early Christians, I wonder, why there's no mention about Ignatius of Antioch's citation from Trallians 11.2 ("they would have been seen to be branches of the Cross")?

Theological Dictionary of the New Testament: Abridged in One Volume by Geoffrey W. Bromiley, 1985 p. 1072 speaks about this metaphor:

It is a trunk which with living force puts forth branches (Trallians 11.2) (emphasis mine)

Cross is like trunk (or stake, beam; not two beams).

Just one example... 89.110.0.202 (talk) 15:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The metaphorical expression "These men are not the planting of the Father. For if they were, they would appear as branches of the cross, and their fruit would be incorruptible" in Trallians 11:2 could be used of the cross regardless of its shape - even if it were circular. Lima (talk) 17:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Why such a confidence/self-confidence? If you have this opinion it doesn't mean that there is no other versions (which can be even more valid). And I've quoted one of them.

89.110.0.202 (talk) 08:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I apologize. I thought you were only expressing your own opinion. Obviously a mistake on my part. By all means insert Bromiley's opinion about the meaning of - I must interrupt myself. I thought of inserting Bromiley's opinion myself, and so I went and looked him up. He does not interpret Trallians 11:2 as referring to the shape of the cross. On the page immediately before his mention of the metaphorical sense of Trallians 11:2 (which, as I said, would hold even if the cross were circular in shape) he actually writes: "The cross is a post with cross-beam, and Jesus is nailed to it." So Bromiley quite clearly does not interpret Trallians 11:2 as referring to a single stake. Lima (talk) 08:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

As I understand it, Bromiley:

1. as well, clearly states that "stauros is an upright "stake" such as is used in fences and palisades"
2. expresses a traditional view, that Jesus was put death on a cross
3. understands Trallians 11.2 in the way that is more evident, namely, that stauros is like a trunk. This in turn easily may (and there are some solid grounds) be interpreted as a beam or stake (fortunatelly there not so much trees with circle-shaped trunk :))

89.110.3.34 (talk) 20:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

As for Vine's opinion, it isn't the only one. The opinion of the Encyclopaedia Britannica is another:

Usually, the condemned man, after being whipped, or “scourged,” dragged the crossbeam of his cross to the place of punishment, where the upright shaft was already fixed in the ground. Stripped of his clothing either then or earlier at his scourging, he was bound fast with outstretched arms to the crossbeam or nailed firmly to it through the wrists. The crossbeam was then raised high against the upright shaft and made fast to it about 9 to 12 feet (approximately 3 metres) from the ground. Next, the feet were tightly bound or nailed to the upright shaft. A ledge inserted about halfway up the upright shaft gave some support to the body; evidence for a similar ledge for the feet is rare and late. Over the criminal’s head was placed a notice stating his name and his crime. (emphases added)

And The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology says about the Greek word stauros:

Corresponding to the vb. (stauroo) which was more common, stauros can mean a stake which was sometimes pointed on which an executed criminal was publicly displayed in shame as a further punishment. It could be used for hanging (so probably Diod. Sic., 2, 18, 2), impaling, or strangulation. stauros could also be an instrument of torture, perhaps in the sense of the Lat. patibulum, a crossbeam laid on the shoulders. Finally it could be an instrument of execution in the form of a vertical stake and a crossbeam of the same length forming a cross in the narrower sense of the term. It took the form either of a T (Lat. crux commissa) or of a + (crux immissa). (Vol. 1, page 391, quoted here) (emphases added)

And on the next page, 392, quoted here, it continues, speaking specifically of the crucifixion of Jesus:

It is most likely that the stauros had a transverse in the form of a crossbeam. Secular sources do not permit any conclusion to be drawn as to the precise form of the cross, as to whether it was the crux immissa (+) or crux commissa (T). As it was not very common to affix a titlos (superscription, loanword from the Lat. titulus), it does not necessarily follow that the cross had the form of a crux immissa.

There were two possible ways of erecting the stauros. The condemned man could be fastened to the cross lying on the ground at the place of execution, and so lifted up on the cross. Alternatively, it was probably usual to have the stake implanted in the ground before the execution. The victim was tied to the crosspiece, and was hoisted up with the horizontal beam and made fast to the vertical stake. As this was the simpler form of erection, and the carrying of the crossbeam (patibulum) was probably connected with the punishment for slaves, the crux commissa may be taken as the normal practice. The cross would probably have been not much higher than the height of a man.

Other modern writers too could be quoted in favour both of Vine's view and of the Encyclopaedia Britannica's view. They would only confirm what is known already: that there are two opposing views on the matter. Lima (talk) 17:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

So why not to quote them both?..

89.110.0.202 (talk) 08:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

If you think the article, which already at the beginning gives some quotations of the views of modern writers, would benefit from having more, go ahead and put them in. To help you, I have provisionally opened a new section under the heading "Opinions of modern writers", where you can insert your quotation or quotations. Lima (talk) 08:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanx a lot!
89.110.3.34 (talk) 20:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Crossbeam as σταυρός?

May I ask you (as a reseacher of the theme) a question? Are there any koine examples of using stauros for crossbeam only, as today do many sources? 89.110.3.34 (talk) 20:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

It is thought that there are. But they are not as obvious as the references to a σταυρός as T-shaped or +-shaped. In view of the undoubted practice by the Romans at that time to make the condemned person publicly carry the "patibulum" to the place of execution – there are several references to this practice, but none to any alleged practice of carrying a pole or, indeed, of carrying an entire cross – references in Koine Greek to people "carrying" their σταυρός before execution are taken to refer to the crossbeam:

1. "Without even seeing them or listening to their defence he immediately ordered the sixteen cell-mates to be crucified (anastaurósai). They were duly brought out, chained together at foot and neck, each carrying his own cross (ton stauron ephere). The executioners added this grim spectacle to the requisite penalty as a deterrent to others so minded. Now Chaereas said nothing as he was led off with the others, but upon taking up his cross (ton stauron bastazón), Polycharmus exclaimed, 'It is your fault, Callirhoe, that we are in this mess!' " (Chariton, Chaereas and Callirhoe, 4.2.6-7; written in the first century BC to early first century AD).
2. "Every criminal who goes to execution must carry his own cross (ekpherei ton hautou stauron) on his back" (Plutarch, Moralia, De Sera Numinus Vindicta 554 A).
3. "For the cross (ho stauros) is like death and the man who is to be nailed carries it beforehand (proteron bastazei)" (Artemidorus Daldianus, Oneirocritica 2.56; written in the second century AD.

Note too the phrase "on his back", not "on his shoulder". Both arms would be tied to the patibulum. Lima (talk) 04:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• Thx for your efforts, but what I've seen is:

1. You have reffered to so called "undoubted roman practice" of carrying patibulim. (However there are a lot of evidence of variability of crucifixion pratice in Roman Empire)
2. So all the referings to stauros and automatically connected to cross-beam carrying.

Unfortunatelly, I've not catched your logic... 89.110.30.192 (talk) 16:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there is evidence of a lot of variability of crucifixion practice by the Romans, by no means confined to nailing someone to a pole. But there seems to be no evidence of condemned people being forced to carry a pole or a whole cross on their shoulders, while there is much evidence of the practice of forcing them to carry the patibulum with arms outstretched, evidence that goes back long before the time of Jesus (and, of course, after the time of Jesus too). The Roman dramatist Plautus (254-184 B.C.) has several references to the practice. Here are a couple (if you want it, I can give you Plautus's Latin, but perhaps an English translation is enough for you):

"Oh, I bet the hangmen will have you looking like a human sieve, the way they'll prod you full of holes as they run you down the streets with your arms on a patibulum, once the old man gets back" (Mostellaria, 55-57)

"Let him bear the patibulum through the city; then let him be nailed to the crux" (Carbonaria, frag. 2)

"I suspect you're doomed to die outside the gate, in that position: Hands spread out and nailed to the patibulum" (Miles Gloriosus, 359-360)

I said at the beginning that the use of σταυρός to mean the cross-beam is not fully obvious. But in view of this Roman practice of making the condemned person carry the cross-beam to the place of execution, is it not at least likely that it was the crossbeam that the Greek writers were referring to when they wrote of condemned men each "carrying" his σταυρός "on his back"? While σταυρός had other meanings in other contexts, is not this meaning of σταυρός more likely in this context than any other meaning you could propose to fit the picture? While I am not saying it is fully obvious, I think it is clear that it is the "most obvious" interpretation. But if you prefer to interpret it in a less likely way, I won't lose any sleep over your choice. Lima (talk) 18:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

As I see, there is clear distinction between patibulum and crux. But Vulgata doesn't says, that Jesus was "bearing the patibulum through the city; then was nailed to the crux", but is says, that he was carrying crux and was nailed to crux too...

I've seen an intersting quotation by one ancient author about the words, used by romans and greeks for the cross-beam and for the whole cross. But unfortunatelly, I've forgotten where I've finded it. That was something like "we (greeks) speak this way, but romans usually call it that one" :). Probably latin word furca was also used in that quotation. Don't you know what it can be? :) (I understand vagueness of this quote in my memory, but nevertheless...) --—Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.110.30.192 (talk • contribs)

Yes, in that passage there does seem to be a distinction between patibulum and crux, the latter probably meaning the combination of upright and cross-beam. Perhaps Jerome took σταυρός in that passage to mean a full cross, and used the word crux, as English translators use the word cross in the same passage. But as you know, the meaning of crux (like that of σταυρός) was at times somewhat elastic, and varied according to context perhaps more than the meaning of the English word cross.

I am sorry I can't place the quotation about which you asked. If something comes to mind later, I will let you know. Lima (talk) 19:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

As I understood your words, crux can mean: 1) horizontal cross-beam, 2) vertical stake (as a part of the whole cross or as being used alone), 3) whole cross.

If we take such a position and apply this meanings to the text of ancient writters in a manner, which agrees with our own view, of course we can get what we want. :)

But anyway, I'm really grateful for your help. 89.110.30.192 (talk) 22:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I know of no case in which crux (unlike σταυρός) was used for the horizontal crossbeam. Lewis and Short, quoted in the article, does not give that meaning. So, as I said, the Vulgate translation of σταυρός in John 19:17 as crux may be inaccurate to the same extent as the English translations of σταυρός in John 19:17 as cross may be inaccurate. That is, of course, if in this passage σταυρός refers to the crossbeam, as seems most likely. At any rate, it is clear that, at the time of Jesus, σταυρός (and crux too) did not mean only an upright pole. Lima (talk) 03:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

What about Paul?

You may like to check/use these sources. I couldn't find Paul's view in the article.

• [1]
• Book by Ehrman
• [2]

--Kabad (talk) 21:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

All three seem to deal with the use in Galatians 3:13 of the word ξύλον, usually rendered in English translations as "tree". The range of meanings of this word is indicated in the Wikipedia article under "The New Testament". It refers to something made of wood, and can apply also to a live tree or trees, as can the word "timber" in English. The English word "axletree" indicates how in some contexts "tree" need not denote a live tree. In any case, what Jesus carried to the place of execution was not a live tree. Lima (talk) 04:02, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses

"Jehovah's Witnesses do not use the cross at their worship and they believe that Jesus Christ was executed on a "torture stake" (a crux simplex)."

Up to 1935 Jehovah's Witnesses believed that Jesus died on The crux immissa. --DumnyPolak (talk) 02:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I have restored the above statement by DumnyPolak, which another editor eliminated, hopefully by mistake, not dishonestly. DumnyPolak's statement is in accord with what is stated in several sources such as this. Lima (talk) 19:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

There is little no point to try use wikipedia talk page to criticize a group/religion. I do not see how saying what Jehovah's Witnesses believed in 1935 has anything to do this baring on this article or subject. Theologically, the prophets of old were corrected by God, the 12 apostles were corrected by Jesus, as well as the early congregation numerous times. There a difference between meaning of the word perfect and faithful. - Proverbs 4:18. If you want speak religion go door-to-door or something

References cross:

• - A Comprehensive Dictionary of the Original Greek Words with their Precise Meanings for English Readers (under the word stau•ros´).
• - A Greek-English Lexicon, by Liddell and Scott, (under the word xy´lon).
• - An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, by W. E. Vine. (London, 1962), W. E. Vine, p. 256 and 1981, Vol. 1, p. 256.
• - Die Geschichte Jesu, (The History of Jesus), Vol. 2, Tübingen and Leipzig, 1904, pp. 386-394,
• - Das Kreuz und die Kreuzigung, (The Cross and Crucifixion,) by Hermann Fulda.
• - Dictionnaire Encyclopédique Universel (Encyclopedic Universal Dictionary).
• - Dual Heritage—The Bible and the British Museum.
• - History of the Christian Church - (New York, 1897), J. F. Hurst, Vol. I, p. 366.
• - Gibbon’s History of Christianity, Eckler’s edition, 1891.
• - La Nación, (newspaper) writer José Alberto Furque
• - Letters from Rome, Dean Burgon.
• - Strange Survivals.
• - Symbols Around Us, Sven Tito Achen, Danish historian.
• - The Ancient Church, by clergyman W. D. Killen says (1859 edition, page 316).
• - The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 4, p. 191
• - The Catholic Encyclopedia, edition of 1908, Vol. 4, page 517; the footnote on pages 312, 313.
• - The Catholic Digest magazine, May, 1948, page 108.
• - The Chambers’s Encyclopaedia, (1969 edition).
• - The Companion Bible (published by the Oxford University Press, London, 1885), Appendix No. 162, on page 186 in the “Appendixes”.
• - Cyclopædia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature.
• - Dictionary of Subjects & Symbols in Art, J. Hall .
• - The Ecclesiastical Review, of September, 1920, No. 3, of Baltimore, Maryland, page 275.
• - The Encyclopædia Britannica (1946 edition), Vol. 6, p. 753. and Vol. 1, page 666)
• - The Encyclopædia Britannica, 11th edition, Volume 7, p. 506.
• - The Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics.
• - The Encyclopedia Americana.
• - The Greek Septuagint version.
• - Great Religions of the World.
• - The Imperial Bible-Dictionary.
• - The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, (under stau•ros´)
• - The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (1979)
• - The Latin dictionary by Lewis and Short, (under crux).
• - The New Encyclopædia Britannica.
• - The New Catholic Encyclopedia, (1967), Vol. IV, p. 486.
• - The New Schaff & Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge.
• - The Non-Christian Cross, by J. D. Parsons (London, 1896) pp. 133-141.

A discussion on the origin of the cross introduction into worship.

• - Amulets and Talismans, Sir E. A. Wallis Budge.
• - A Short History of Sex-Worship (London, 1940), H. Cutner, pp. 16, 17;
• - Curious Myths of the Middle Ages.
• - Daily News, Ted Noffs, a Methodist minister in Sydney, Australia comments.
• - Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, by Cardinal Newman.
• - Essays on the Worship of Priapus, by Richard Payne Knight.
• - History of the Christian Church, J. F. Hurst, Vol. I, p. 366.
• - History of the Conquest of Mexico, by William H. Prescott.
• - Funeral Tent of an Egyptian Queen, by Villiers Stuart.
• - Masculine Cross and Ancient Sex Worship, by Sha Rocco.
• - M’Clintock and Strong’s Cyclopœdia, Vol. 4, page 503.
• - New Light on the Most Ancient East, by archaeologist V. Childe (1957, p. 185).
• - Presenze giudaiche e cristiane a Pompei (Jewish and Christian Presences in Pompeii)
• - Sex and Sex Worship by O. A. Wall states on page 359.
• - The Ancient Church by clergyman W. D. Killen says (1859 edition, page 316).
• - The book Indian Antiquities.
• - The Cross in Ritual, Architecture, and Art (London, 1900), G. S. Tyack, p. 2.
• - The Mythology of All Races.
• - The Rigvedic Culture of the Pre-Historic Indus.
• - The Standard Dictionary of Folklore, Mythology and Legend
• - The Worship of the Dead (London, 1904), Colonel J. Garnier, p. 226.
• - Two Babylons, by Alexander Hislop. (page 245, footnote).
• - http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:CROSS_Sacral_Stavros_from_the_Temple_Repositories_of_Knossos_1600_BCE_Heraclion_Museum_Greece.JPG

The book Great Religions of the World says: “Cortés and his followers recoiled from human sacrifices of the Aztecs and what seemed like satanic parodies of Christianity: . . . venerating crosslike symbols of wind and rain gods.”

I agree regarding the book entitled the Two Babylons, but I am menetioning a wide range of historic content & information. As for some the sources being older, it only ephasizing the point it has long known by scholars. It in no cancels the information. The reality is also the list is far from exhaustive. Plus, not all others are that old. And even the fact modern encyclopedias are repeating the same information shows much of that information has remained the same, and been information has still very consistent.

“On the eve of the Passover Yeshu [Jesus] was hanged." _ Babylonian, Talmud.--Anaccuratesource (talk) 02:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Compare: Galatians 3:13; and Deuteronomy 21:22, 23. Compare: John 3:13-15; and Numbers 21:4-9.

• - Stau·ros′ in both the classical Greek and Koine carries no thought of a “cross” made of two timbers.
• - Xy′lon also occurs in the Greek Septuagint at Ezra 6:11, where it speaks of a single beam or timber on which a lawbreaker was to be impaled.

• De cruce libri tres, Antwerp, 1629, p. 19, one such (non-cross) instrument of torture is illustrated by Justus Lipsius - 1547-1606.
• by Varus (Jos. Ant. XVII 10. 10), by Quadratus (Jewish Wars II 12. 6), by the Procurator Felix (Jewish Wars II 15. 2), by Titus (Jewish Wars VII. 1). Quote a reference source: "Anything other than a simple hanging is ruled out by the wholesale manner in which this execution was often carried out: 2000 at once by Varus"

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04517a.htm http://www.britannica.com/ http://members.cox.net/srice1/books/parsons/parsons.htm#CH3

Constantine became Sole Emperor venerated the Solar Wheel.

Literal Translation

---

From the onset the article states, "Easton's Bible Dictionary lists the forms in which such gibbets are represented." This quick quote and the list following it is used as a substitute for explaining the real issues at hand. To someone who is a complete novice to the subject matter, he will not fully understand the significance of what is said here. In addition the constant use of the word "crux," not originally translated as it is today, might seem to confirm his original thinking that in fact it was a cross. This article does not use neutral words when discussing the instrument of Christ's death, but constantly assumes that it was indeed a cross.

Under "Opinions of modern writers," only one citation is made in support of stake! There are other reputable scholars outside of Vine that supported the rending of stauros as stake. Having a 3 to 1 ration implies that Vine is the only idiot, weird scholar that believed this! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maurices5000 (talk • contribs) 19:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

It is not wrong for Jehovah's Witnesses to translate stauros as "stake." That would solely be a literal translation of the Greek words used. Archaeological evidence and secular sources outside the bible are extra-biblical. While they may shed light on a biblical event, it is important that bible translations strongly adhere to what the text actually says. Regarding bias, this article doesn't begin on the premise that stauros is literally translated "a pole or stake." It doesn't even state that translating it AS SUCH IS NOT ERRONEOUS! Instead the article starts off on the premise that "These words do not indicate the precise shape of the gibbet." That is a matter of opinion and thus the controversy! Did the Bible specifically state that Jesus died on a cross? NO, the closest rendering of the Greek words used are stake, pole or tree. Are the words in the bible open to interpretation so that stauros may possibly have an EXPANDED definition? If the latter is the case then the article should say so rather than state the biased opinion: "These words do not indicate the precise shape of the gibbet." In modern dictionaries we have DEFINITION 1 and DEFINITION 2. This article makes it appear that there is ABSOLUTELY NO REASON to revert back to using the word stake rather than cross. This is simply untrue! Translating stauros as pole or stake is an extremely accurate rendering of the text. Cross is an INTERPRETATION possibly even a dynamic equivalence!

-- Maurice —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maurices5000 (talk • contribs) 19:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Title of this article

The title of this article is rather long and also on the informal side. Seems to me we could shorten it to "Gibbet on which Jesus died" or "Gibbet on which Jesus was crucified". This would also allow the article to cover any other topics related to the gibbet. For example, I think there were relics brought back to Europe from Jerusalem that were claimed to be parts of the cross (or stake) on which Jesus was crucified.

--Richard (talk) 19:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with you. Good reasons! 91.122.12.163 (talk) 19:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

The article is about the shape of the gibbet (cross or post?), not about related matters, such as the supposed relics of the true Cross, which would be a distraction from the topic. Lima (talk) 13:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

A gibbet is "a stake with a crosspiece". The current title therefore asserts a particular POV supporting one of the disputed views. Perhaps [Dispute of] Jesus' execution device would be a more appropriate title?--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:48, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I have gone ahead with the move away from the non-neutral title, but happy to discuss alternatives.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:51, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

This seems to be a misunderstanding. While most dictionaries are exasperatingly terse in their definitions of gibbet, it is true that a typical gibbet has what might be called a "crosspiece" or "arm" or "arms", but that is NOT for outstretching the hands of the condemned and has little or no reminiscence of a patibulum.
A gibbet is any instrument of death which secures the dying or dead high, at least partially for public viewing (and/or other reasons including preventing its consumption by animals). That's why some reference works imagine a synonymy between gibbet and gallows. It's easy to grasp that a gallows is a gibbet, because each has an arm. But the "crosspiece" of a gallows doesn't extend equally from both sides.
Also... an executioner's block on an elevated platform was/is routinely referred to as a gibbet, as was a guillotine before its French name stuck. Neither device includes arms upon which a condemned hands would be outstretched.
So, unless a gallows and a guilliton are to be confused with a crux immissa, there seems no reason to imagine POV in calling Christ's instrument of death a gibbet. "Gibbet" does not presuppose "cross".
See an image search.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 12:08, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the elaboration. Do you have any concerns with the current article title?--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:16, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Meh. --AuthorityTam (talk) 14:26, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I (roger kovaciny, as signed below) thought of a compromise, although it may be unacceptable to Jehovah's Witnesses. As the Wikipedia article "Crucifixion" surmises, the Romans probably left the uprights of crosses in place. Probably there was a notch cut to help hold the crossbar, which would be tied on to the upright after the victim's hands were nailed to it. In such a case Jesus would have carried his stauros--the patibulum, truly a "torture stake", but turned horizontally to be lifted onto the gibbet. Or is a stake not a stake when you turn it 90 degrees? I can't see the Romans going to the effort of digging up the upright and carrying it back to court just to make the prisoner drag it back to the place of execution. In fact I can't see them digging a hole in the first place just to place a cross in it--it would be much easier to use an existing tree and just cut off the branches till it was in the desired shape. But they might very well want to take the crossbar and the rope it was fastened with back to the courtroom, because both rope and wood are resources that would have been worth stealing at that time and place, but not worthy of guarding since they were usually outside the city. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roger Kovaciny (talk • contribs) 13:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC) Roger Kovaciny (talk) 13:41, 18 July 2010 (UTC)Roger Kovaciny

The article name is pretty stable, so I'm not sure a "compromise" is still needed. I've long thought the article could have been named something like: Dispute about the shape of Christ's torture stake.
After all, a cross is certainly a torture stake, and both the Greek "stavros" and the Latin crux" can literally translate to English as "stake". But, the current title doesn't seem particularly troublesome.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 21:18, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Tree

I have heard it said by some people that Jesus may have been nailed to an old olive tree. Anyone else heard this?--78.151.26.183 (talk) 00:30, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

It seems unlikely, as the trunks of olive trees aren't known for straightness, consistent girth, and length. They're more typically misshapen, tapered, and short. Of course, the stake was obviously wooden and reminded Bible writers of a tree. See Deuteronomy 21:22,23 and Galatians 3:13. --AuthorityTam (talk) 21:18, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Interwiki links

These articles do not dispute about Jesus' execution method, they were wrongly linked. They were two groups of different articles, one group about Jesus' execution method, another group about theories of Whatchtower. It was nonsense to link these two groups of the articles together. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 14:08, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

To what other English article should these articles about the Watchtower theory be linked? The English article to which they are at present linked is precisely about the dispute aroused by the Watchtower theory. Esoglou (talk) 14:29, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

(I have copied this here rather than revert again. Esoglou (talk) 14:34, 4 July 2010 (UTC))

OK, let us discuss this problem. In English article all possibilities are discussed: I, X, T, or †. Watchtower's theory is treated as one of many other possibilities. In the Greek article - only T or † (nothing about I). There is no even word about Jehovah's Witnesses (Μάρτυρες του Ιεχωβά), German article also has nothing about Jehovah's Witnesse's. Perhaps they should be not linked with English article but English article is still closer to them than to Polish, Italian, or Portugal articles. These articles do not discuss X, T, or †, but discuss only I or † - Are Jehovah's Witnesses right or not. Polish article is very chaotic and nonsensical, it should be deleted or reworked. It is very poor article because of edit wars. Russian article is the closest to the English article (it is translation).

I think these article should discuss all possible shapes of the cross without any references to the Wathtower (only occasionally). Bullinger and Parsons were not Jehovah's Witnesses. We have article Beliefs and practices of Jehovah's Witnesses, there is a place for their theories. The article "Dispute about Jesus' execution method" should discuss all possibilities, not only Watchtower's possibilities. Before this edit the article had different character. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 15:29, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

The English article in fact treats the dispute (singular, not plural) as between those who hold the stake theory and those who hold for a cross with crossbeam (treating the T and † shapes as variants of the cross with crossbeam). There is not, as far as I remember, a word about any dispute about these two forms of the cross with crossbeam, nor is there any mention whatever of any dispute by people holding that the cross of Jesus was X-shaped. Only two interpretations are mentioned: Section 2: Interpretation as stake; Section 3: Interpretation as cross. The article Esecuzione di Gesù secondo i Testimoni di Geova gives first the interpretation as stake, then the criticisms of this theory that indicate the interpretation as cross. What else is this about but the same dispute that the English article is about? Far more clearly so than the section of a German article to which you have kept an interwiki link. The German article presents itself (rightly) as associated with the English article Crucifixion, and the section of it to which you have kept a link only gives a reason for believing that the cross of Jesus had a crossbeam, without any mention of the fact that there are people who hold a different view. Unlike the Italian article, the German article section cannot claim to be about the dispute.

In any case, articles do not have to be identical to be linked. It is enough that they have something in common. You still have not indicated what other article in the English Wikipedia the articles that you have unilaterally delinked from this article (and have even gone to them and removed the link that they gave to this article) would more suitably be linked to. Unless there is something more suitable, they should get back their link to an article in the English Wikipedia that is somewhat similar. Esoglou (talk) 16:41, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Polish and Portugal article are written in the same way as Italian. I just started a discussion about reworking of the Polish article, perhaps it will similar as English. Italian and Portugal articles are problem of their users. German can not be longer linked with these articles, but what we will do with Greek article. There is only discussion about T or †.Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 19:35, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

The English article is about a certain dispute, is it not? Like the German article section, the Greek article says nothing explicitly about the dispute: you won't find the words αμφισβήτηση or φιλονεικία or anything similar in it. Like all the other articles, including the English, it does not have a discussion, none whatever, about whether the cross of Jesus was of T or † shape. But, like the German article section, it does take care to affirm that Jesus died on a cross (and so not on a stake). Why do these two articles take care to make this affirmation, unless because of the existence of a dispute on the question? So they implicitly concern the dispute that the English article is about, and that justifies linking them with the English article. The Italian and Portuguese articles are not about "problems of their users": they are about the dispute that the English article is about, i.e., did Jesus die on a stake or a cross. They are explicitly about that dispute, not just implicitly like the Greek and German articles. You certainly have not justified cutting the link between the Italian and Portuguese articles and the English article on the same topic.

And you still have not indicated what English article other than this the Italian and Portuguese articles could possibly be linked with. If this is the closest, then the link must be with this. Esoglou (talk) 20:33, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

So, we should link all these articles except German and Greek. Agreed? Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 20:36, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

The Greek article is implicitly about the dispute and is extensive. Indeed, the English article began as a shortened translation of the Greek article. The German link is only to a section of an article and makes a very brief implicit reference to the dispute. So it may not be worth linking to. So I have no objection to removal of the link with it. Nor have I any objection to keeping the link. Esoglou (talk) 20:46, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Commendation and thanks are due to Leszek Jańczuk. Esoglou (talk) 05:40, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Recent sources

Two recent publications on the topic include Larry W. Hurtado, “The Staurogram in Early Christian Manuscripts: The Earliest Visual Reference to the Crucified Jesus?,” in New Testament Manuscripts: Their Texts and Their World, ed. Thomas J. Kraus and Tobias Nicklas (Leiden: Brill, 2006), 207-26, with an abstract on Larry's blog here and a soon-to-be published thesis by Gunnar Samuelsson with an abstract from his new website here. Cheers. Ovadyah (talk) 18:03, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Redirect from Jehovah's Witnesses page

Jehovah's Witnesses view of Jesus' death will soon redirect here. Editors may be interested in the historical content of that page in order to expand sections of this article. ...comments? ~BFizz 21:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

It is about time to merge the pages. I'm surprised it hasn't yet been done.

209.212.5.67 (talk) 15:56, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Enoch Powell

I added these words to the article:

"Enoch Powell published a new theory about Jesus' execution. After "close reading"he concluded that Jesus was stoned to death. Stoning was the proscribed and usual penance for religious crimes by non Romans. The Roman citizen Paul was beheaded."

Enoch Powell was a first class academic.... I feel strongly that he should be mentioned here. His point is part of the "Dispute about Jesus' execution method" isn't it? He should, as far as this is concerned, not be seen as "a politician". He was a full professor of ancient Greek at a young age, later he became a politician. But his view on this dispute is not that of "just a" politician. It is the opinion of a learned scholar based on Greek texts.

Powell was a Fellow of Trinity College and was appointed Professor of Greek at Sydney University before he became a politician.

Faithfully yours, Robert Prummel (talk) 19:38, 16 January 2011 (UTC) (not a christian and not affiliated with any church or faith.)

You need a a source that shows that his theory won some academic support. The news item that you cite indicates instead that that it was not taken seriously. Esoglou (talk) 20:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

what is this dispute about?

Ok it is about the shape of the cross and blah blah, is it cross-like or T-like or simple-stick-like, but it doesn't say a word about why this is so important, what is the dispute really about? For example if there was some dispute about the cause of death or if some claimed to be impalement instead of crucifixion it whould be something i could partly understand. Unless there is actually nothing meaningfull about the dispute at all--Vanakaris (talk) 15:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

The importance arises only because of the insistence of the Jehovah's Witnesses that the shape was that of a pole. Esoglou (talk) 16:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Is there a reliable source that says that? If so, the point should be made in the lead so that readers such as Vanakaris and myself would understand the reason for all the ruckus. I myself never understood it until you explained it just now. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 02:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

There are non-JW biblical scholars (as mentioned in the article) that do not support the cross shape. However, I don't think they make as much of a big deal out of it as the Witnesses do. I've taken the liberty of expanding the introductory paragraph with a better summary of the article's contents. ...comments? ~BFizz 02:50, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

The central point of this article should be mentioned in Crucifixion of Jesus

The central point of this article is mentioned in the article on Crucifixion but not in Crucifixion of Jesus where it would seem to be most relevant. I have added it to the "See also" section but I think it deserves at least a sentence or even a paragraph in Crucifixion of Jesus. Can someone who is more familiar with the content of this article make the appropriate edits to Crucifixion of Jesus? --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 02:20, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Content fork?

Is there a notable dispute about this issue?? This article seems to exist as a content fork to give prominence to Jehovah's Witnesses' belief that Jesus died on a single upright beam. There don't appear to be many references supporting the existence of a notable dispute. In keeping with this topic's notability, it could be greatly reduced as a section at Crucifixion of Jesus, where JWs' view on the matter can be briefly stated.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:36, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

There is a discussion on Talk:Crucifixion_of_Jesus#Merge_.28POV_fork.29 and I would like to note here that I object to the execution of this article and the deletion of significant material from it, given that there is much referenced text of value here that can not be subject to summary crucifixion. History2007 (talk) 01:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

As I have clearly stated at the other discussion, I am only working on a sandbox copy of this article for reduction for a section suitable for Crucifixion of Jesus and am not making any significant changes to this article at this stage, pending further input from other editors.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:00, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

As History2007 says, there is much referenced text of value here that could not be fitted into the other article without seeming disproportionate. The proposed merging of the present article would necessitate preservation of that valuable referenced material as a distinct article under a title such as "The shape of the cross on which Jesus was crucified, as pictured in early Christian times" (shortened to at most ten words).

For Jehovah's Witnesses, this is a notable question, one on which they insist strongly. For those uninterested in the views of Jehovah's Witnesses, it will seem as unimportant as the Trinity seems to those with no interest (favourable or unfavourable) in Christianity and the Immaculate Conception to those uninterested in Catholicism - but these are matters that do merit Wikipedia articles. Esoglou (talk) 16:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

For some reason, the doctoral thesis of the Swedish clergyman Gunnar Samuelsson is not yet mentioned in this article: Crucifixion in Antiquity. —Mendelo (talk) 11:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I have now inserted a mention of it. Esoglou (talk) 14:36, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

WP: Death Assessment Commentary

I have read the article and assessed it as B-class, though with some reservations. Here are some suggestions for improvement if the primary editor wishes to nominate the article for a higher status.

• References section should be split: Citations to books and articles should be in References; supplementary information should be placed in a Footnotes section.
• Use of Greek-language terms in the text is admirable for presenting accurate and detailed information, but may be meaningless for the majority of readers. If non-English terms must appear in the body of text, they should be placed in parentheses following translations or transliterations, or otherwise uniformly placed in footnotes for the benefit of the interested reader who can read Greek.
• There is, in some places, an over-abundance of information, some of it unnecessary. For example:
  • The entire Archaeology section can be pared down to about two sentences.
    • Also, I'm fairly certain there have been other osteological studies on the topic of crucifixion in the Roman Empire.

Good luck. Boneyard90 (talk) 11:54, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

The word "crucifixion"?

Dionysius of Halicarnassus, who lived at the time of the birth of Jesus, described how those condemned to crucifixion...

I followed the link and the English translation never mentions the word "cross" or "crucifixion". So how can we know what he calls crucifixion? There were different types of punishments back then, killing on cross, killing on a pole and etc. --Otherguylb (talk) 05:25, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I've added some sources that say Dionysius was referring to a crucifixion. Esoglou (talk) 09:55, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Copy-paste of source material

Too much of this article consists of lengthy quotes from the source material. Can editors please remember that Wikipedia articles should be your own words, based on reliable sources. The essay Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing mainly addresses concerns of copyright violation, but the article will be much easier to read if it is a summary and discussion of the source material rather than just lengthy quotes from it. I've started rewriting some of the problem areas, but help from other editors would be appreciated. BlackCab (talk) 03:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm still trying to get my head around this article. I'm baffled by the statement in the lead section, that says, "both those claims are disputed by other scholars". The rest of the article shows that there is indeed support for the WTS view, so it seems to me that the lead section needs to state that scholars are divided over the issue. Which is what the rest of the article shows: some accept Christ died on a cross, others say it was a pole or stake. To be honest, I'm a bit puzzled at why the article is centered on the JW view on this, when clearly it was a matter of dispute long before the JWs came into existence. Shouldn't the lead section be based on the division among scholars, but note that JWs are the primary modern exponent of the stake view? BlackCab (talk) 08:14, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Another question: Though I'm doing my best to improve the readability of the article and turn a series of discrete quotes into paragraphs that flow, I'll confess I know very little about the subject. However the "Stauros interpreted as ambivalent in meaning" section appears to contain opinions that argue in favor of the stauros having a crossbeam. If that's the case, shouldn't the opinions of The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology and the three reference works alluded to in the final paragraph of that section be headed as "Interpreted as a cross"? Despite the section heading, there doesn't seem much ambiguity in their opinions. BlackCab (talk) 12:30, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I suppose the reason for special mention of Jehovah's Witnesses is that they form the only group that insists on the non-cross view (and indeed also on a Constantinian date for Christian adoption of the cross as a symbol).

The non JW-associated writers who hold the stake view in relation to the death of Christ seem to be very few. Apparently, the first ever to propound that view was Henry Dana Ward in 1871. Earlier, he had written on the imminence of the Second Coming of Christ and on the evils of Freemasonry (see list of his writings). He is also the first to propose that the Christians chose a pagan symbol unrelated to the crucifixion of Jesus as their special symbol. Although Bullinger is rightly described as nineteenth-century, it appears that the work of his cited in support of that view was published in the twentieth (1909-1922). What precisely is cited is an appendix, so I am unsure whether it was written by Bullinger himself, especially since he died in 1913. However, I don't think it is important who inserted that appendix into the work associated with Bullinger. William Edwyn Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words is of 1940 and Wood and Marshall's New Bible Dictionary is even more recent.

I think that, objectively, the New Testament description proves nothing about the shape of what Jesus died on, and that scholars in general recognize that. Recognizing that means of course not accepting the view of those who hold that it must have been a stake, as well as that it must have been a cross. However, except for the few who maintain that it must have been a stake, they admit in general the likelihood (not the certainty) of the traditional image. This is my answer to your last question above.

I think that, objectively, it is quite clear that the first Christians did think of Jesus as having died on something that had a crossbeam, placed either close to the top of the upright or on top of it, and that they associated the cross symbol with themselves. Claims like that in the appendix attributed to Bullinger that the absence of a painting of the crucifixion of Christ in the Roman catacombs is proof(?) that Christ did not die on a cross seem quite invalid: the same logic would show that he did not die on a stake. They seem not even to have attempted to address the picture of the real situation as presented in, for instance, so neutral a source as the Jewish Encyclopedia.

I think it best not to intervene myself at this stage, but I do encourage you warmly to keep up your good work. Esoglou (talk) 13:07, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Rewrite, re-angle proposal

I may be talking to myself here, but it strikes me that the article has some major flaws. In primarily pushing the viewpoint of opponents of the JW doctrine, it could be viewed as a coatrack article. Of the last three sections of the article, the two longer ones seem to be presenting only the views of scholars who present evidence that the stauros was indeed a cross (the last section is poorly referenced and should probably be deleted).

I'm aware there has been talk about deleting the page and merging abbreviated material with another article, but here, anyway, is a proposal:

Reshape the article substantially, and possibly renaming it (again). Insert a section immediately following the lead, laying out the claims of the sources used by the WTS (principally Vine, Parsons and Bullinger) to support the Jehovah's Witness claim that "evidence is completely lacking that Jesus was crucified on two pieces of timber placed at right angles" (their words). Their misuse of Fairbairn, which I've written into the last paragraph of the lead, could be addressed in that section, along with their clear, unabashed misrepresentation of the Justus Lipsius illustration in their New World Translation with References. The remainder of the article could be sources that oppose that doctrine (in other words, favour a crossbeam or at least allow the possibility of one). I don't want the article to be an attack page or specifically a page of criticism, but the JW doctrine on the cross has had its notability demonstrated and this would offer an opportunity to present more detailed information on the issue.

I'm willing to do the heavy lifting, but I'm keen to hear from anyone who has objections to the plan. BlackCab (talk) 10:44, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

How do you propose to deal with the overwhelming evidence that early Christians repeatedly and clearly associated the death of Christ with a cross and not even one of them suggested a connection with a stake? For someone interested in the question, that would seem to be the most valuable part of the article.

I wonder did anyone ever before 1871 propose the idea that Jesus died on a simple pole. As you know, certain publications seem to want to suggest that Justus Lipsius did, but while he described so many forms, he had no doubt about the cross form in the case of Jesus, and in that regard only discussed matters such as whether a footrest was attached. Esoglou (talk) 12:41, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

By the way, I still have not worked out the meaning of "WTS". I suppose it must really be obvious to others, but I must at last confess my own ignorance. Esoglou (talk) 12:45, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I obviously spend too much time on Jehovah's Witness articles. WTS is the Watch Tower Society, publisher of JW literature. BlackCab (talk) 13:17, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Ongoing disagreement over the wording, and angle, of the opening sentence to the intro highlights the underlying problem with this article: what's the point of it? If there is only one religion disputing that Christ died on a cross, that needs to be the focus, with the article thus renamed something along the lines of "Jehovah's Witness doctrine on the Christian cross". Given the current content, I'd question whether it is actually a dispute. If the whole world believes the instrument of execution was a cross and one minority religion insists, on spurious evidence and a blatant misuse of some sources, that it was an upright stake, wouldn't the issue be better named with something like Holocaust denial? BlackCab (talk) 03:44, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I think there is a dispute. The JW teaching that it must have been a stake is rejected by others, who picture the stauros of Christ as cross-shaped, although without making the shape a point of doctrine. But a title that gave more prominence to the JW source of the dispute might well be a good thing. Why not make a formal proposal for a move to the title that you suggest and see whether it obtains consensus? Esoglou (talk) 10:35, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Content fork

This article is fairly clearly a content fork for the view of a relatively minor religion opposed to a belief in mainstream Christianity. Editors previously claimed that the article should be expanded to include other supposedly disputed aspects of Jesus' execution, but nothing was done to that effect. Is there any good reason not to delete the article?? If not, relevant aspects of the JW view should be summarised and merged to Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs#Cross, and this article should be deleted.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:37, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

After reading WP:CFORK I'm not sure it even fits that definition. Was it ever supposed to have represented the JW view or just been a platform to criticise it? If no one can agree on what the point of the article is, what information it purports to deliver, then there's a problem. I made a proposal above for a complete rewrite and re-angle, but I've really lost enthusiasm for that and I suspect there are few secondary sources that critique in detail the JW position on the cross. I'd be in favour of just killing the whole thing and merging the key information as suggested by Jeffro. I have some days free next week and may get a chance to move some of that material. BlackCab (talk) 11:35, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

The most valuable part of the article is the information it gives about how early Christians pictured the gibbet on which Jesus died. That should not be simply deleted. Where do you propose that it go? A separate article on that topic?

Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs#Cross is itself a summary of the JW view and refers to this article for the development of the subject. The JW view cannot be adequately treated without examination of the difficulties against it. It would therefore require a separate article on "Jehovah's Witnesses' doctrine on the Christian cross", a title suggested above by BlackCab for this article. Esoglou (talk) 16:10, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

This article started out as Torture stake in 2006 (with the opening sentence, According to the belief of Jehovah's Witnesses, Jesus was impaled on a single-beamed "stake"). In 2007, the article was moved to Cross or stake as gibbet on which Jesus died. In 2009 it was moved to Historical disputes over the shape of the Crucifix, and then the following day to Dispute about the shape of the gibbet of Jesus. In 2010, I changed the wordy title to Dispute of Jesus' execution method, and another editor changed it the same day to Dispute about Jesus' execution method. Despite occasional claims to the contrary, the purpose of the article has always essentially been to promote the views of Jehovah's Witnesses regarding the 'torture stake'. Whilst that view is notable within the context of JW beliefs, it does not warrant a separate article.

As has been suggested at the head of the article since March 2011, any notable information about the gibbet or other aspects common to Christianity should be merged to Crucifixion of Jesus. Any elements specific to JWs should be at Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs#Cross.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:57, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

(See also Talk:Dispute about Jesus' execution method/archive1#Merge, archive of the Talk page of Jehovah's Witnesses view of Jesus' death, now a redirect to this article].)--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:07, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

(See also Talk:Dispute about Jesus' execution method#Content fork? and Talk:Crucifixion of Jesus#Merge (POV fork).)--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:26, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

This article is no beauty, and it suffers from real flaws. But this article is certainly not an example of WP:CFORK, where the same topic is discussed in parallel articles. Incidentally (and at the risk of having WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS screamed at me), Wikipedia has other articles related to hypotheses about Jesus: Swoon hypothesis, Stolen body hypothesis, Vision hypothesis. Comparing and contrasting, is Crux simplex hypothesis uniquely intolerable? The article at Crucifixion of Jesus discusses everything related to Jesus' crucifixion, and has just a sentence or two about the shape of the gibbet. Both sides of the gibbet-shape "dispute" are well sourced from secondary sources, and it seems remarkably unlikely that the Wikipedia community would benefit from eliminating the majority of the topic discussion just to shoehorn the topic into a single section at Crucifixion of Jesus. The "dispute" seems to have continued for more than 150 years now (preceding Jehovah's Witnesses) and most of the cited scholars are not Witnesses. Perhaps move some of this discussion to the article Stauros? perhaps reinstate a less-ambiguous name here? I'm still unconvinced about the change from what was a perfectly acceptable name ("Dispute about the shape of the gibbet of Jesus").--AuthorityTam (talk) 17:40, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I can't see that anyone else has yet noted... Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dispute about Jesus' execution method, the AfD proposal by User:Jeffro77 was closed with Keep.--AuthorityTam (talk) 18:53, 5 March 2012 (UTC)