Ambiguity of terms used The
Koine Greek terms used in the
New Testament of the structure on which Jesus died are () and (). These words, which can refer to many different things, do not indicate the precise shape of the structure; scholars have long known that the Greek word and the Latin word did not uniquely mean a cross, but could also be used to refer to one, and so do not considered necessarily incorrect the traditional picture of a cross with transom. The ambiguity of the terms was noted by
Justus Lipsius in his (1594),
Jacob Gretser in his (1598) and
Thomas Godwyn in his
Moses and Aaron (1662).
John Pearson, Bishop of Chester () wrote in his commentary on the
Apostles' Creed that the Greek word originally signified "a straight standing Stake, Pale, or Palisador", but that, "when other transverse or prominent parts were added in a perfect Cross, it retained still the Original Name", and he declared: "The Form then of the Cross on which our Saviour suffered was not a simple, but a compounded, Figure, according to the Custom of the
Romans, by whose Procurator he was condemned to die. In which there was not only a straight and erected piece of Wood fixed in the Earth, but also a transverse Beam fastened unto that towards the top thereof". Justus Lipsius invented a specific terminology to distinguish different forms of what could be called a cross or . His basic twofold distinction was between the (a simple stake) and the (a composite of two pieces of wood). The victim could be affixed to the or could be impaled on it. Lipsius then subdivided the into three types: the (X-shaped), (T-shaped) and (resembling a traditional Christian cross). Lipsius himself, as also Gretser and Godwyn, held that Jesus was nailed not to a , but to a . However,
W. E. Vine and
E. W. Bullinger, as well as Henry Dana Ward, considered that the "cross" (Greek , in its original sense literally an upright pale or stake) had no crossbar, and that the traditional picture of Jesus on a cross with a crossbar was incorrect.
Stauros interpreted as simple stake only (1547–1606) In his 1871 study of the history of the cross,
Episcopal preacher
Henry Dana Ward accepted as the only form of the gibbet on which Jesus died "a pale, a strong stake, a wooden post". : (1595), p. 47 Anglican theologian
E. W. Bullinger, in
The Companion Bible (which was completed and published in 1922, nine years after his 1913 death), was emphatic in his belief that never meant two pieces of timber placed across one another at any angle, "but always of one piece alone[...] There is nothing [of the word ] in the Greek of the N.T. even to imply two pieces of timber." Bullinger wrote that in the
catacombs of Rome Christ was never represented there as "hanging on a cross" and that the cross was a pagan symbol of life (the
ankh) in Egyptian churches that was borrowed by the Christians. He cited a letter from English Dean
John William Burgon, who questioned whether a cross occurred on any Christian monument of the first four centuries and wrote: "The 'invention' of it in pre-Christian times, and the 'invention' of its use in later times, are truths of which we need to be reminded in the present day. The evidence is thus complete, that the Lord was put to death upon an upright stake, and not on two pieces of timber placed in any manner." With regard to the "primary" or "original" meaning of the Greek word ,
William Edwy Vine (1873–1949) wrote in his
Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, published in 1940: " denotes, primarily, 'an upright pale or stake'. On such malefactors were nailed for execution. Both the noun and the verb , 'to fasten to a stake or pale', are originally to be distinguished from the ecclesiastical form of a two beamed cross". He said the shape of the ecclesiastical form of a two-beamed cross "had its origin in ancient
Chaldea, and was used as the symbol of the god
Tammuz (being the shape of the mystic Tau, the initial of his name) in Chaldea and nearby lands, including
Egypt". He added that third-century churches, which by then had departed from certain doctrines of the Christian faith, accepted pagans into the faith in order to increase their prestige and allowed them 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." This association of the cross symbol with Tammuz had already been made by Abram Herbert Lewis in his 1892 book
Paganism Surviving in Christianity.
Stauros interpreted as patibulum Andreas J. Köstenberger (2004) notes that traditional academic reconstruction of the cross has first Jesus, then
Simon of Cyrene bear the , i.e. only the horizontal crossbar, Latin . Yet when Simon carries the to Golgotha, the crossbar is then hoisted to the stake to make the traditional crucifix shape. Schröter (1997) notes that the lack of references in ancient sources, aside from
Plautus (
The Charcoal Woman 2 and
The Braggart Warrior 2.4.6–7) and
Plutarch (
Moralia 554AB), to "bearing the cross" implies that a criminal carrying his own was not very common. James B. Torrance in the article "Cross" in the
New Bible Dictionary writes that the Greek word for "cross" (; verb ; Latin , 'I fasten to a cross') means primarily an upright stake or beam, but also allows the construction that Jesus and Simon of Cyrene carried a to Golgotha. In applying the word to the crossbeam, these writers indicate that the complete structure on which Jesus died was not a single upright post but formed what is normally called a cross.
Raymond Edward Brown remarks that in the canonical gospels "not a word is reported about the form of the cross, about how he was affixed, about the amount of the pain", but excludes the use for Jesus of a , "since he carried a cross[beam] to the place of execution".
Stauros interpreted as ambiguous in meaning The Greek-English Lexicon of Liddell and Scott reports that the meaning of the word "σταυρός" in the early
Homeric form of Greek, possibly of the eighth to sixth century BC, and also in the writings of the fifth-century BC writers
Herodotus and
Thucydides and the early-4th century BC
Xenophon, is "an upright pale or stake" used to build a palisade or "a pile driven in to serve as a foundation" It reports that in the writings of the first-century BC
Diodorus Siculus, first-century AD
Plutarch and early second-century
Lucian—as well as in , , —the word "σταυρός" is used to refer to a cross, either as the instrument of crucifixion or metaphorically of voluntary suffering; "its form was indicated by the
Greek letter Τ". It also reports that Plutarch used the word with regard to a pale for impaling a corpse. Of the writers whom Liddell and Scott gives as using "σταυρός" to mean a cross, the
New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology holds that in Diodorus Siculus the word probably means a stake for hanging. Plutarch (in
An vitiositas ad infelicitatem sufficiat) distinguishes crucifixion on a
stauros from
impalement on a
skolops. Joel B. Green, in
The Cambridge Companion to Jesus, says the evidence of the manner of Jesus's death is far more ambiguous than is generally realised. Literary sensibilities in Roman antiquity did not promote graphic descriptions of the act of crucifixion, and even the Gospels report simply, "They crucified him", adding no further detail. According to Green, the Romans were slaves to no standard technique of crucifixion: "In describing the siege of Jerusalem by the Roman army, for example, Josephus reports that 'the soldiers out of rage and hatred amused themselves by nailing their prisoners in different positions' (J.W. 5.449–51). Elsewhere we learn that victims of crucifixion might be fixed to the stake in order to die, or impaled after death as a public display. They might be fixed to the cross with nails or with ropes. That Jesus was nailed to the cross is intimated in several texts (John 20.25; Acts 2.23; Col 2.14; Gos. Pet. 6.21; Justin Dial. 97). Nor can we turn to archaeological evidence for assistance." Professor Robin M. Jensen, in her book entitled
The Cross: History, Art, and Controversy, says that
"stauros (Latin = ''
) did not necessarily imply [a cross]. Historically both Greek and Latin words simply referred to an upright stake to which those condemned to death might be bound or tied until they suffocated to death. The conventional picture of a Latin cross (crux immissa
) has been challenged over the centuries as some scholars and even Christian communities have argued instead that Christ died on a T-shaped cross (crux comissa
) or even upon a simple stake (crux simplex'')."
"Stauros" interpreted as a cross in the case of Jesus In his book
Crucifixion in Antiquity, Gunnar Samuelsson declares that, while the New Testament terminology is in itself not conclusive one way or another for the meaning of the word, "[t]here is a good possibility that σταυρός, when used by the evangelists, already had been charged with a distinct denotation − from Calvary. When, e.g., Mark used the noun it could have meant 'cross' in the sense in which the Church later perceived it. [...] The Gospel accounts probably show that σταυρός
could signify "cross" in the mentioned sense, but they do not show that it always did so." In his Q and A page he adds: "(The Gospels) do not describe the event in length [...] The non-detailed accounts of the Gospels do not, however, contradict the traditional understanding. So the traditional understanding of the death of Jesus is correct, but we could acknowledge that it is more based on the eyewitness accounts than the actual passion narratives."
The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, dealing specifically with the crucifixion of Jesus, says 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." The authors say there were two possible ways of erecting the
stauros, which would probably have been not much higher than the height of a man. The condemned man could be fastened to the cross lying on the ground at the place of execution, then lifted up on it. 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. They say that as this was the simpler form of erection, and the carrying of the crossbeam (
patibulum) was probably a form of punishment for slaves, the
crux commissa may be taken as the normal practice. 1.
stauros is an upright stake. ... 2.
stauros is an instrument of torture for serious offences,
Plut. Ser. Num. Vind. 9 (II, 554a);
Artemid. Onirocr., II, 53 (p. 152, 4 ff.);
Diod. S. 2, 18 (-» III, 411. n.4). In shape we find three basic forms. The cross was a vertical, pointed stake (
skolops, 409, 4 ff.), or it consisted of an upright with a cross-beam above it (
T,
crux commissa), or it consisted of two intersecting beams of equal (
†,
crux immissa) Other reference works contend that the cross was "a post with a cross-beam" (
Theological Dictionary of the New Testament); "the form usually seen in pictures, the
crux immissa (Latin cross †), ... in which the upright beam projects above the shorter crosspiece" (
International Standard Bible Encyclopedia); and "most likely the
crux immissa (the traditional † depiction) or the
crux commissa (a T-shaped cross)" (John R. Donahue and Daniel J. Harrington,
The Gospel of Mark). Donahue and Harrington suggest: "The victim was first affixed to the crossbeam (
patibulum) with ropes and/or nails through the wrists or forearms. Then the crossbeam was fitted on the vertical beam and the victim was lifted up and set on a peg or "seat" on the vertical beam and perhaps also on a footrest. The idea was to prolong the agony, not to make the victim more comfortable." ==Other technical details==