- This topic is empty.
- Posts
is the Cross the symbol of Christianity?
THE CROSS
–Symbol of Christianity?How would someone feel, if every time his birthday came around, his mother insisted on bringing out snapshots showing what he was like when he was a baby? People like to be recognized for what they are now, not just for what they were as infants.
It is rather similar concerning life and death. People hope to be remembered for what they accomplished in life, not for what they lo9oked like in their last moments. Hence, when a statue is erected in honor of a famous man, it usually shows him standing upright and strong, or engaged in some activity for which he was famous, not suffering in his death agonies.
In view of this, it is interesting how Jesus is usually envisioned by most people. At Christmas time he is represented as a helpless babe in a manger. The rest of the year he is most often shown as a man dying in agony. Is this a balanced representation of someone who is now a glorious enthroned King?–Gal. 3:13; Rev 6:2
Though Jehovah’s Witnesses do not wear crosses or venerate the cross fro reasons which will soon be explained, they do deeply appreciate the fact that Christ gave his life in our behalf.
There is no other symbol among the many churches of Christendom that is considered to be more Christian than that of the cross. It is considered the foremost symbol of Christianity for many centuries. Untold multitudes have prayed before it in their churches and reverenced it in their homes. It appears inside and outside of church buildings, on clerical vestments, on covers of Bibles, on coffins and gravestones, on necklaces earrings, on Christmas cards and Christmas decorations and on a great number of other things. It is without doubt the predominating religious symbol in countries that claim to be Christian. The New Encyclopaedia Britannica calls the cross “the principal symbol of the Christian religion.” In a court case in Greece, the Greek Orthodox Church even asserted that those who reject the ‘Holy Cross’ are not Christian. For centuries multitudes have accepted the cross as a symbol of Christianity. But is it really? Is that what the Bible and the facts of history show? Is the traditionally shaped cross really a Christian symbol? Is it something we would want to worship or even cherish? Is it something we would want to wear around our necks? A good place to begin would be with this question:They used the Greek noun stauroś 27 times and the verbs stauróo 46 times, synstauróo (the prefix syn, meaning “with”) 5 times, and anastauróo (aná, meaning “again”) once. They also used the Greek word xýlon, meaning “wood,” 5 times to refer to the torture instrument upon which Jesus was nailed.
STAUROS
The Greek word rendered “cross” in many modern Bible versions is stauroś. In classical Greek, this word meant merely an upright stake, or pale. Later it also came to be used for an execution stake having a crosspiece.
The Imperial Bible-Dictionary acknowledges this, saying: “The Greek word for cross, [stauroś], properly signified a stake, an upright pole, or piece of paling, on which anything might be hung, or which might be used in impaling [fencing in] a piece of ground. . . . Even amongst the Romans the crux (from which our cross is derived) appears to have been originally an upright pole.”—Edited by P. Fairbairn (London, 1874), Vol. I, p. 376.
Douglas’ New Bible Dictionary of 1985 under “Cross,” page 253: “The Gk. word for ‘cross’ (stauros; verb stauroo . . . ) means primarily an upright stake or beam, and secondarily a stake used as an instrument for punishment and execution.”
The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (1979) states under the heading “Cross”: “Originally Gk. staurós designated a pointed, vertical wooden stake firmly fixed in the ground. . . . They were positioned side by side in rows to form fencing or defensive palisades around settlements, or singly they were set up as instruments of torture on which serious offenders of law were publicly suspended to die (or, if already killed, to have their corpses thoroughly dishonored).”XYLON
The fact that Luke, Peter, and Paul also used xýlon as a synonym for stauroś gives added evidence that Jesus was impaled on an upright stake without a crossbeam, for that is what xýlon in this special sense means. (Ac 5:30; 10:39; 13:29; Ga 3:13; 1Pe 2:24)
For example, Acts 5:30 refers to “hanging him on a tree.” 1 Peter 2:24 says “He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree.”
Numerous translators of the Christian Greek Scriptures therefore translate Peter’s words at Acts 5:30 to read: “The God of our forefathers raised up Jesus, whom you slew, hanging him upon a stake [or, “tree,” according to the King James Version, New International Version, The Jerusalem Bible, and Revised Standard Version].” You might also wish to check how your Bible translates xýlon.
Xýlon 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.
EZRA 6:11
“And by me an order has been put through that, as for anybody that violates this decree, a timber will be pulled out of his house and he will be impaled upon it, and his house will be turned into a public privy on this account.”
A Greek-English Lexicon, by Liddell and Scott, defines xýlon as meaning: “Wood cut and ready for use, firewood, timber, etc. . . . piece of wood, log, beam, post . . . cudgel, club . . . stake on which criminals were impaled . . . of live wood, tree.” It also says “in NT, of the cross,” and cites Acts 5:30 and 10:39 as examples. (Oxford, 1968, pp. 1191, 1192) However, in those verses KJ, RS, JB, and Dy translate xýlon as “tree.” (Compare this rendering with Galatians 3:13; Deuteronomy 21:22, 23.)CRUX
True, the Romans did use an instrument of execution known in Latin as the crux. And in translating the Bible into Latin, this word crux was used as a rendering of stauroś. Because the Latin word crux and the English word cross are similar, many mistakenly assume that a crux was necessarily a stake with a crossbeam. However, The Imperial Bible-Dictionary says: “Even amongst the Romans the crux (from which our cross is derived) appears to have been originally an upright pole, and this always remained the more prominent part.”—Edited by P. Fairbairn (London, 1874), Vol. I, p. 376.
Christ could well have been impaled on a form of crux (stauroś) known as the crux simplex. That was how such a stake was illustrated by the Roman Catholic scholar Justus Lipsius of the 16th century
The Latin dictionary by Lewis and Short gives as the basic meaning of crux “a tree, frame, or other wooden instruments of execution, on which criminals were impaled or hanged.” In the writings of Livy, a Roman historian of the first century B.C.E., crux means a mere stake. “Cross” is only a later meaning of crux. A single stake for impalement of a criminal was called in Latin crux siḿplex. One such instrument of torture is illustrated by Justus Lipsius (1547-1606) in his book De cruce libri tres, Antwerp, 1629, p. 19.THE CROSS IN CHRISTIAN ART
“The use of the cross as a symbol was condemned by at least one church father of the 3rd century CE because of its Pagan origins. The first appearance of a cross in Christian art is on a Vatican sarcophagus from the mid-5th Century.” (B.M. Metzger, M.D. Coogan, “The Oxford Companion to the Bible,” Oxford University Press, (1993), Page 57)
“THE sign of the cross has been a symbol of great antiquity, present in nearly every known culture. Its meaning has eluded anthropologists, though its use in funerary art could well point to a defense against evil. On the other hand, the famous crux ansata of Egypt, depicte
d coming from the mouth, must refer to life or breath. The universal use of the sign of the cross makes more poignant the striking lack of crosses in early Christian remains, especially any specific reference to the event on Golgotha. Most scholars now agree that the cross, as an artistic reference to the passion event, cannot be found prior to the time of Constantine.”—Ante Pacem—Archaeological Evidence of Church Life Before Constantine (1985), by Professor Graydon F. Snyder, page 27.
“The representation of Christ’s redemptive death on Golgotha does not occur in the symbolic art of the first Christian centuries. The early Christians, influenced by the Old Testament prohibition of graven images, were reluctant to depict even the instrument of the Lord’s Passion.”—New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967), Vol. IV, p. 486.
(Ex. 20:4, 5, JB: “You shall not make yourself a carved image or any likeness of anything in heaven or on earth beneath or in the waters under the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them.”)
Concerning first-century Christians, History of the Christian Church says: “There was no use of the crucifix and no material representation of the cross.”—(New York, 1897), J. F. Hurst, Vol. I, p. 366.EVEN IF IT WERE A CROSS
Recall Paul’s statement: “Accursed is every man hanged upon a stake.” Would it not be better to think of Christ as a glorious enthroned King!—Galatians 3:13; Revelation 6:2.
True Christians need no material object like a cross to help them worship God. For, as Paul exhorted, they “are walking by faith, not by sight.”—2 Corinthians 5:7.A PAGAN SYMBOL
The cross has been used through history as an object of pagan worship and of superstitious awe. (Compare 1 Cor 10:15; 1 John 5:21)
“Various objects, dating from periods long anterior to the Christian era, have been found, marked with crosses of different designs, in almost every part of the old world. India, Syria, Persia and Egypt have all yielded numberless examples . . . The use of the cross as a religious symbol in pre-Christian times and among non-Christian peoples may probably be regarded as almost universal, and in very many cases it was connected with some form of nature worship.”—Encyclopædia Britannica (1946), Vol. 6, p. 753.
“It is strange, yet unquestionably a fact, that in ages long before the birth of Christ, and since then in lands untouched by the teaching of the Church, the Cross has been used as a sacred symbol. . . . The Greek Bacchus, the Tyrian Tammuz, the Chaldean Bel, and the Norse Odin, were all symbolised to their votaries by a cruciform device.”—The Cross in Ritual, Architecture, and Art (London, 1900), G. S. Tyack, p. 1.
“The cross in the form of the ‘Crux Ansata’ . . . was carried in the hands of the Egyptian priests and Pontiff kings as the symbol of their authority as priests of the Sun god and was called ‘the Sign of Life.’”—The Worship of the Dead (London, 1904), Colonel J. Garnier, p. 226.
“Various figures of crosses are found everywhere on Egyptian monuments and tombs, and are considered by many authorities as symbolical either of the phallus [a representation of the male sex organ] or of coition. . . . In Egyptian tombs the crux ansata [cross with a circle or handle on top] is found side by side with the phallus.”—A Short History of Sex-Worship (London, 1940), H. Cutner, pp. 16, 17; see also The Non-Christian Cross, p. 183.
“These crosses were used as symbols of the Babylonian sun-god, [see book], and are first seen on a coin of Julius Cæsar, 100-44 B.C., and then on a coin struck by Cæsar’s heir (Augustus), 20 B.C. On the coins of Constantine the most frequent symbol is [See book]; but the same symbol is used without the surrounding circle, and with the four equal arms vertical and horizontal; and this was the symbol specially venerated as the ‘Solar Wheel’. It should be stated that Constantine was a sun-god worshipper, and would not enter the ‘Church’ till some quarter of a century after the legend of his having seen such a cross in the heavens.”—The Companion Bible, Appendix No. 162; see also The Non-Christian Cross, pp. 133-141.The Encyclopædia Britannica: “From its simplicity of form, the cross has been used both as a religious symbol and as an ornament, from the dawn of man’s civilization. Various objects, dating from periods long anterior to the Christian era, have been found, marked with crosses of different designs, in almost every part of the old world.” (Eleventh Edition, Vol. VII, p. 506)
HOW THE CROSS BECAME CHRISTIAN
“The shape of the [two-beamed cross] had its origin in ancient Chaldea, and was used as the symbol of the god Tammuz (being in the shape of the mystic Tau, the initial of his name) in that country and in adjacent lands, including Egypt. By the middle of the 3rd cent. A.D. the churches had either departed from, or had travestied, certain doctrines of the Christian faith. In order to increase the prestige of the apostate ecclesiastical system pagans were received into the churches apart from regeneration by faith, and were permitted largely to retain their pagan signs and symbols. Hence the Tau or T, in its most frequent form, with the cross-piece lowered, was adopted to stand for the cross of Christ.”—An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words (London, 1962), W. E. Vine, p. 256.Quote I Agree with David. According to the NWT Jesus was Crucified on a stake, or upright pole.
No, rather, according to the words 'xylon' and 'stauros.' That is in fact, what those words mean. Tradition and popular paganism mixed with Christianity teach otherwise.Right, the NWT is one of, if not the most accurate Bible translation known to man. I'm just saying that when you say or imply on this particular site: “The NWT says it so I believe it” you should be able to back up your beliefs.
Let us listen to what Jason BeDuhn has said. (He is a Greek scholar and Associate Professor of Religious Studies Department of Humanities, Arts, and Religion Northern Arizona University. He holds a B.A. in Religious studies from the University of Illinois, Urbana, and M.T.S. in New Testament and Christian Origins from Harvard Divinity School, and a Ph.D. in the Comparative Study of Religions from Indiana University, Bloomington. He is the author of many articles in the areas of Biblical Studies and Manichaean Studies, and of the book, The Manichaean Body: In Discipline and Ritual (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2000), winner of the “Best First Book” prize from the American Academy of Religion.)
“Atrocious, deceitful, and inaccurate” may be what some call the NWT, but such a characterization is completely erroneous. Nearly every message I have received since the Watchtower article came out has claimed that “all reputable scholars,” “every Greek or biblical scholar,” etc. has condemned the NWT. It often sounds like people are getting this quote from the same source. But whatever the source, it is a lie. I have looked into the matter, and found almost no reviews of the NWT in academic journals. Most date from the 50s and 60s (the NWT has been improved since then). This kind of blanket condemnation of the NWT does not exist, for the most part because biblical scholars are far too busy to review WBTS publications which are considered outside of academic interest. It is simply something we don't pay attention to. I would welcome the names of any scholar who has written a review of the KIT or NWT; I am looking for these reviews, which seem few and far between. For [this]characterization to be correct, [a critic] would have to point out places in the NWT where the translators deliberately give a false meaning for a word or phrase. Not a meaning within the range of possibility for the Greek, but something actually false and ungrammatical. Despite dozens of contacts in the last month, no one has yet supplied a single example which shows deliberate distortion (and I have checked many passages suggested to me). The fact is that the NWT is what I call a “hyper-literal” translation, it sticks very close to the Greek, even making awkward English reading. There are a few places where the translators seem to have gone far out of their way, sometimes to clarify something suggested by the Greek, often for no apparent reason (maybe my ignorance of fine points of Witness theology prevents me from grasping what they are up to). And if you look at any other available translation, you will find similar instances where interpretation has been worked into the text in a way that stretches, if it does not violate the Greek. Every translation is biased towards the views of the people who made it. It is hard to judge who is right and who is wrong simply by comparing versions. You must go back to the Greek.”
My point was the last few words of this quote: “You must go back to the Greek.”
Well, according to My Bible study teachers, and my Bible teach book, They use the original Greek texts in their translations. Hence the Hebrew-Aramaic and Christian-Greek Scriptures.
Yes I know. But again, my point was simply that saying something is true because ….
Someone could just as easily say: “My king james version says “cross” so it's a cross Jesus died on.”
My point was just that it is better to look to the greek behind the NWT when discussing such things on here and not simply saying that the NWT says something, so it must be true. understand, that most people on here will soon be attacking the NWT because we've mentioned it. It's not well liked because JW's aren't well liked. I included the above post for others more than you.david.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
