Impaled on a stake — a result of sectarian bias?

<strong>Impaled</strong> on a stake — a result of sectarian bias? 

In the ancient world the most humiliating and painful form of punishment was to 

hang people naked and alive on a stauros, and to let them hang there for hours, 

even days, until death finally came as a merciful relief. The bodies would 

usually be left hanging for birds and animals, thus making the shame complete since 

the victim would not be given a proper grave. One authority said, “this form of 

capital punishment lasted for around 800 years and tens if not hundreds of thousands 

of individuals were subjected to this cruel and humiliating death.” 1 

The Bible says that Jesus Christ died upon a stauros. Almost all Bible translations 

translate the Greek word stauros as “cross”. That is except Stern’s Jewish New 

Testament, 2 Capel’s 21 st Century translation, 3 Jahn’s Exegeses Ready Research 

Bible 4 and the NWT. 

This is a rare uniformity when it comes to Bible translations and their translation of 

Greek words. But when we look at the word stauros in Greek dictionaries and 

encyclopedias, we are confronted with a surprisingly more varied understanding of 

the word. 

The NWT uses “torture stake” and has thus been accused of fronting a sectarian bias. 

Our intention is to show that “stake”, “execution-stake” or “torture stake”, is a better 

rendition than “cross” and that there are both philological and linguistic reasons 

speaking against “cross”. 

The problem is: how did 1 st century readers of the Gospels understand the word 

stauros as used of the instrument of Jesus’ death? What is the best way to translate 

stauros, so that it gives modern readers an understanding that is as close as possible 

to the understanding that the first Christians got when they read the Gospel accounts? 

1 J. Zias, "Crucifixion in Antiquity: The Evidence" (1998). 

2 Jewish New Testament (trans. D. H. Stern; Jerusalem: Jewish New Testament Publications, 1989). 

3 21st Century New Testament: The Literal/Free Dual Translation (trans. V. Capel; Bristol: Insight 

Press, ca. 1998). 

4 H. Jahn, The Exegeses Ready Research Bible (2d ed.; Iowa Falls: World Bible Publishers, 1993).

<strong>Impaled</strong> on a stake - a result of sectarian bias? 2 

Let us start by looking at the noun stauros and the corresponding verb stauroô. 

Stauros is used 27 times of the instrument 5 . 

Stauroô is used 46 times of the method 6 . 

In Classical Greek stauros was an upright 

“stake” or “pole”, like the ones used in fences 

or palisades 7 . The stauros was used for 

executions from early times, by impaling the 

body. "stauroŒs is an upright “stake” such as is 

used in fences or palisades. The stauroŒs is an 

instrument of torture for serious offenses. It 

may be a vertical pointed stake, an upright 

with a cross-beam above it, or a post with an 

intersecting beam of equal length.” 8 

“The Gk. 

word for ‘cross (stauros; verb staurooµ; Lat. 

crux, crucifigo, ‘I fasten to a cross’) means 

primarily an upright stake or beam, and 

secondarily a stake used as an instrument for 

Figure 1 Illustration from De Cruce 

Liber Primus by Justus Lipsius. 

5 Mt 10:38; 16:24; 27:32; 27:40; 27:42; Mk 8:34, 15:21, 30, 32; Lk 9:23, 14:27, 23:26; Jn 19:17, 19, 

25, 31; 1 Co 1:17, 18; Ga 5:11, 6:12, 14; Eph 2:16; Php 2:8, 3:18; Col 1:20, 2:14; Heb 12:2. 

6 Mt 20:19; 23:34; 26:2; 27:22,23; 27:31,35,38; 28:5; Mk 15:13,14,15,20,24,25,27; 16:6; 

Lk 23:21(2), 23, 33, 24:7,20; Jn 19:6(2),10,15(2),16,18,20,23,41; Ac 2:36; 4:10; 2Cor 1:13, 23, 2:2,8; 

13:4; Ga 3:1, 5:24; 6:14; Re 11:8. The verb synstauroô is used in Mt 27:44; Mk 15:32; Jn 19:32; Ro 

6:6; Ga 2:20, and the verb anastauroô in Heb 6:6. 

7 "Originally Gk. staurós designated a pointed, vertical wooden stake firmly fixed in the ground.” 

International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (Fully revised; ed. G. W. Bromiley; Grand Rapids, 

Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1979) I, 825. "stauros (4716) denotes, 

primarily, “an upright pale or stake.” On such malefactors were nailed for execution. Both the noun 

and the verb stauroô, “to fasten to a stake or pale,” are originally to be distinguished from the 

ecclesiastical form of a two beamed “cross.” W. Vine, M. F. Unger and W. White, "Cross, Crucify," 

Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words (Logos Library System 

electronic edition; Thomas Nelson, 1997). “Stauros is an upright, sometimes pointed stake” The New 

International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (ed. C. Brown; Grand Rapids, Michigan: 

Regency Reference Library; Zondervan Publishing House, 1986) I, 391. 

8 Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Abridged in One Volume (Abridged in one volume by 

Geoffrey W. Bromiley; Logos Library System electronic edition; ed. G. Kittel and G. Friedrich; trans. 

G. W. Bromiley; Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1996) 

“stauros”.


punishment and execution. It is used in this latter sense in the NT.” 9 

The meaning of the verb stauroô is “to put up posts,” “to protect by a stockade.” 10 

As to stauros, its original and generic meaning has even reached Norwegian. The 

first meaning assigned to stauros in Dictionnaire Etymologique de la Langue 

Greque 11 is pole (pieu). It also says: "The word corresponds exactly to the Norse 

staurr (pole)." In modern Norwegian staur still means "pole" or "stake". 12 We also 

find the word in Sanskrit as sthavara, and in Gothic as stiurjan with the meaning 

"something standing upright". So the original Indo-European basis for stauros 

evidently was strong and continued for a long time, even spreading to other 

languages. 

In Modern Greek stauros means primarily “cross”, secondarily “stake, pole”. So, the 

question that interests us is: what did it mean at the time of Jesus’ execution and 

when the NT was written? 

The major dictionaries typically state that: 

1. Originally and in Classical Greek stauros was a stake, pole. 

2. In the NT, stauros means “cross” 13 . 

Why do they give this meaning to it in the NT? Any Greek dictionary or lexicon 

dealing with the NT, is first and foremost theological in nature, and therefore 

primarily a matter of interpretation, and ultimately, bias. The most comprehensive 

Greek dictionary (10 volumes) is named the “Theological Dictionary of the New 

9 New Bible Dictionary (Logos Library System electronic edition of 2nd edition; ed. J. Douglas; 

Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House, 1996) “Cross, Crucifixion”. 

10 Theological Dictionary of the New Testament: Translated from Theologisches Wörterbuch Zum 

Neuen Testament (Reprint; ed. G. Kittel and G. Friedrich; trans. G. W. Bromiley; Grand Rapids, 

Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1995) VII, 581. 

11 P Chantraine, 1980. 

12 ”To staur corresponds exactly the gr. staurov" “stake”” (H. Falk & A. Torp: Etymologisk ordbog 

over det norske og det danske sprog. Oslo: Ringstrøm, 1992: 825). 

13 

staurov", oJ, (sthǹai) an upright pale or stake, Hom., etc.: of piles driven in to serve as a 

foundation, Hdt., Thuc. the Cross, N.T.: its form was represented by the Greek letter T, Luc. H. G. 

Liddell and R. Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon (Revised and augmented throughout by Sir Henry 

Stuart Jones with the assistance of Roderick McKenzie; 9th ed.; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1978).


Testament”. It has been criticized for being “as much an interpretation of the New 

Testament as a guide to the semantics of words used in it.” 14 

These dictionaries are the most important reference tools for translators, and the 

majority of translators will translate stauros in accordance with these dictionaries. 

When these reference works say that the word means “cross” in the NT, they will 

translate with cross, regardless of the primary or original meaning. 

When Jerome translated the NT into Latin in the late 4 th century he translated stauros 

with crux. Lewis & Short says regarding the general meaning of crux: “a tree, frame, 

or other wooden instruments of execution, on which criminals were impaled or 

hanged.” 15 In Latin there was a close connection between the word crux and the 

nature of this form of execution: “The Latin word crux was applied to the simple 

pole, and indicated directly the nature and purpose of this instrument, being derived 

from the verb crucio, “to torment”, “to torture”.” 16 

As we see, the Latin crux originally meant the same as the Greek stauros. It was only 

when the patibulum (crossbeam) was added to the crux that it became a “cross” in 

the modern sense of the word. 

As late as the 16th century the word "crux" could signify different shapes. In our 

copy of De Cruce Liber Primus by Justus Lipsius (16th century) there are many 

illustrations of different "crosses", including three illustrations of "crux simplex" 

which is an upright pole to which the victims could be nailed or bound in different 

ways. 

14 J. Barr, The Semantics of Biblical Languages (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1975) 246. Barr 

also criticizes BAGD along the same lines. 

15 C. T. Lewis and C. Short, A Latin Dictionary: Founded on Andrew's Edition of Freund's Latin 

Dictionary (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1894). 

16 "Archæology of the Cross and the Crucifix," in The Catholic Encyclopedia (1999).


Figure 2 Illustration from De Cruce Liber Primus by Justus Lipsius. 

Let us summarize our discussion of stauros before we progress; the original meaning 

of the word was a stake. This meaning was strong and long-lasting, even reaching 

remote languages, and was also reflected in it’s Latin translation, crux. When the 

primary understanding of stauros turned from “stake” to “cross” in the modern sense, 

we simply do not know. 

Why is stauros usually translated as “cross” in the NT? 

The great majority seems to take it as a matter of fact that stauros should be 

translated as “cross” in the NT, and do not comment upon it at all. But those 

translators that do, and critics of the NWT, usually use the following arguments: 

1. At the time of Jesus stauros was a cross. Romans used crucifixion, not 

impalement.


2. Jesus, or Simon of Cyrene, could not have carried the stake itself because it 

was too heavy, but only the crossbeam. 

3. The early Church Fathers describe the cross. 

4. Archeological findings point to a cross. 

Did the Romans at the time of Jesus use only crosses, not stakes? 

A common argument for translating stauros as cross is that at the time of Jesus and 

the writing of the Gospels the word stauros had taken on the meaning “cross”, and 

no longer signified a mere upright stake as it originally did. One reason given for 

this, is that the Romans in the 1 st century CE had perfected the use of the stauros as a 

form of torture and execution by using crosses since they made the victims suffer 

more and for a longer time than mere stakes, and that the typical Roman 

effectiveness made them standardize the process, method and form of the stauros. 

However, the reality was more complex 17 . We have several 1 st century witnesses to 

the contrary. Executioners could vary the form of punishment, as Seneca the 

Younger indicates: 

“I see crosses there, not just of one kind but made in many different ways: some 

have their victims with head down to the ground; some impale their private 

parts; others stretch out their arms on the gibbet.” 18 

In his account of what happened to Jewish fugitives from Jerusalem, Josephus also 

lets us see that there was no fixed pattern. Much depended on the sadistic ingenuity 

of the moment. 19 This was by no means a unique case: “The manner in which the 

17 “The exact technical form and significance of execution are not conveyed by the word stauros and 

(ana)stauroÜ, without further definition. In order to determine this, it is necessary to know in what 

region and under what authority the execution was carried out. It is also necessary to know the 

standpoint of the writer who uses these terms.” The new international dictionary of New Testament 

theology, I, 391. 

18 Dialogue 6, De consolatione ad Marciam, 20.3 

19 “They were first whipped, and then tormented with all sorts of tortures before they died, and were 

then crucified [stauroô] before the wall of the city. This miserable procedure made Titus greatly to 

pity them, while they caught every day five hundred Jews; nay, some days they caught more; yet did it 

not appear to be safe for him to let those that were taken by force go their way; and to set a guard over 

so many, he saw would be to make such as guarded them useless to him. The main reason why he did 

not forbid that cruelty was this, that he hoped the Jews might perhaps yield at that sight, out of fear 

lest they might themselves afterwards be liable to the same cruel treatment. So the soldiers out of the 

wrath and hatred they bore the Jews, nailed those they caught, one after one way, and another after


victims were crucified was not fixed by law but appears dependent on the number of 

individuals involved, the sadistic ingenuity of those carrying out the execution and 

the time needed for this spectacle to have its maximum deterrent effect.” 20 

Not only were there various forms of hanging and nailing, but also the instrument 

could vary: 

“Originally the ‘cross’ was an upright stake to which the corpse of an executed 

criminal was bound for public display or on which the living body of a 

condemned person was affixed to await death. During Roman times a crossbar 

was sometimes added across the top of the stake forming a T (later known as St. 

Anthony’s cross) or intersecting it to form the familiar Christian shape.” 21 

We also note these: “Under the Roman Empire, crucifixion normally included a 

flogging beforehand. At times the cross was only one vertical stake.”. 22 “Use of an 

upright stake as an instrument of torture and execution attained particular 

significance as the culmination of Christ’s persecution and thus as a symbol of 

atonement for mankind.” ,2324 

M. Hengel is one of the modern scholars who have studied this form of execution 

most thoroughly. His conclusion was that: 

“Even in the Roman empire, where there might be said to be some kind of 

‘norm’ for the course of execution, the form of execution could vary 

considerably: crucifixion was a punishment in which the caprice and sadism of 

the executioners were given full rein. All attempts to give a perfect description 

of the crucifixion in archaeological terms are therefore in vain; there were too 

many different possibilities for the executioner.” 25 

another, to the crosses, by way of jest; when their multitude was so great, that room was wanting for 

the crosses [Gr. stauros, plural], and crosses [Gr. stauros, plural], wanting for the bodies.”(Jewish 

War 5 §449–51) 

20 Zias, "Crucifixion in Antiquity: the evidence,". 

21 Harper's Bible Dictionary (Logos Library System electronic edition; ed. P. J. Achtemeier; San 

Francisco: Harper & Row, 1996) “cross”. 

22 The Anchor Bible Dictionary (Logos Library System electronic edition; ed. D. N. Freedman; New 

York: Doubleday, 1997) Crucifixion. 

23 The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary (Reprint; ed. A. Myers; Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. 

Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1989) “Cross, Crucifixion”. 

24 See also J. B. Green, "Death of Jesus," Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels (ed. J. B. Green, 

McKnight Scot and I. H. Marshall; Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1992) 147. and The 

Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1981) I:745. 

25 M. Hengel, Crucifixion in the Ancient World and the Folly of the Message of the Cross 

(Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977) 25.


From this we understand that one simply cannot argue that the Romans used only 

crosses since there is no evidence that stauros had taken on another meaning than 

“stake” when we come to the 1 st century CE and the NT context. 

Would the stake be too heavy to carry? 

Many claim that the stake would be to heavy to carry for Jesus, so the stauros 

mentioned cannot be the stake, but the crossbeam (patibulum). 

Well, we do not know how much it weighted: we do not know its length, what kind 

of wood or the diameter of the pole. What we do know is that it was to heavy for 

Jesus to carry in his condition, so that he had to have help by Simone of Cyrene. All 

Gospel accounts say that it was the stauros that was carried. If this were a stake with 

a crossbeam, the cross would be heavier than the simple stake, and much more 

uneven and awkward to carry. Either it was the stake Simon carried or it was a piece 

of wood, which should be used as a crossbeam. If it was just the crossbeam, it is 

remarkable that all four Gospel writers said it was the stauros. We must also 

remember that this is one of the most detailed accounts of this form of torture and 

death from the Classical world. 

Many sources claim that it was the cross that was carried, not only the crossbeam. 

The judicial custom by which the condemned person carried his stake to the place of 

execution, was applied by the Lord to those sufferings by which His faithful 

followers were to express their fellowship with Him, e.g., Matt. 10:38. 26 

Do the Early Church Fathers prove that it was a cross? 

In this discussion we have focused upon sources among the Early Church Father’s 

that describe stauros and are often referred to: Barnabas, Justin Martyr and Irenaeus. 

Since these are among the oldest, the argumentation also applies to the younger 

sources. 

26 Vine, Unger and White, "Cross, Crucify,".


The Letter of Barnabas 

In the Letter of Barnabas IX, 3,4 we find what is regarded as the oldest testimony on 

the shape of the instrument of Jesus’ execution: 

”What then was the knowledge that was given him. Notice that he first 

mentions the eighteen, and after a pause the three hundred. The eighteen i I (= 

ten) and H (=8)- you have Jesus – and because the cross [Gr. stauros] was 

destined to have grace in the T he says ” and three hundred”. So he indicates 

Jesus in the two letters and the cross [Gr. stauros] in the other” 27 

It is commonly assumed that Barnabas wrote this letter in the first part of the 2 nd 

century CE, or less than 100 years after Jesus’ execution, meaning that he cannot 

have been an eyewitness. This naturally reduces his value as a source, and his 

statement about the shape of the stauros is nothing short of spectacular. His opinion 

is that it is a vital piece in an acclaimed prophecy, where the number of servants of 

Abraham was a prophecy about Jesus Christ. Barnabas divides the number into 18 + 

300, where 18 is equivalent to the Greek letters IE, which should be put before 

“Jesus” since these are the first two letters in “IESOS”, and the number 300, “T” in 

Greek, the shape of the stauros. No wonder this has been called “elaborate trifling”, 28 

and “such bizarre exegesis is, of course, unacceptable today.” 29 

Justin Martyr 

In Justin Martyr’s work First Apology he claims that one sees crosses everywhere; 

boats with their rigs and sails forming crosses, tools for plowing, tools used by 

craftsmen etc. 30 

In Dialogue with Trypho he discusses a prophecy in Deut 33:13-17 which should 

have been fulfilled on Jesus Christ: 

27 K. Lake, The Apostolic Fathers, with an English Translation (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard 

University Press, 1877) 373. 

28 J. McClintock and J. Strong, Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature 

(Reprint; Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1981) “Cross”. 

29 The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, 745. 

30 ”For the sea is not traversed except that trophy which is called a sail abide safe in the ship; and the 

earth is not ploughed without it: diggers and mechanics do not their work, except with tools which 

have this shape. And the human form differs from that of the irrational animals in nothing else than in 

its being erect and having the hands extended, and having on the face extending from the forehead 

what is called the nose, through which there is respiration for the living creature; and this shows no 

other form than that of the cross”.


”For the one beam is placed upright, from which the highest extremity is raised 

up into a horn, when the other beam is fitted on to it, and the ends appear on 

both sides as horns joined on to the one horn. And the part which is fixed in the 

center, on which are suspended those who are crucified, also stands out like a 

horn; and it also looks like a horn conjoined and fixed with the other horns.” 

It is assumed that Justin Martyr wrote in the middle of the 2 nd century CE, so the 

same applies to him as a source as it did to Barnabas. It is interesting to note that to 

see crosses “everywhere”, as Justin Martyr puts it, is not a Christian phenomenon: 

”From the numerous writings on this subject..(...) the symbol of the cross 

appears to have been most various in its significations. Sometimes it is Phallus, 

sometimes the planet Venus, or Nilometer, or an emblem of the four elements, 

or the seasons (Creuzer’s Symbolik , p. 168-9). It is therefore not surprising that 

ancient and even modern Christian writers should on this subject have indulged 

in some degree of refinement and mysticism. Justin Martyr (Apol. i, § 72)” 31 

Figure 3 Illustration from De Cruce 

Liber Primus by Justus Lipsius. 

to the shape of Jesus’ stauros is of little value: 

Irenaeus 

When Irenaeus in Against Heresies 2.24.4 

discusses the number 5, which he finds to 

be a number of special significance, he 

touches on the form of the instrument of 

Jesus’ death: ”The very form of the cross, 

too, has five extremities, two in length, 

two in breadth, and one in the middle, on 

which [last] the person rests who is fixed 

by the nails.” 

Against Heresies was written about 180 

CE, 150 years after Jesus’ death, and in 

this means that it has even less value as a 

source than the Letter of Barnabas and the 

writings of Justin Martyr. 

In conclusion we can say that the 

testimony of the Early Church Fathers as 

31 McClintock and Strong, Cyclopedia of Biblical, theological, and ecclesiastical literature, II, 576.


• Since they wrote 70-150 years after the vent took place, they must (at best) 

have relied on secondhand information, and should be handled as such. 

• Interpretation of prophecies and mysticism seem to have played a part in their 

description of the instrument, making them very dubious as reliable sources. 

• The sources did not agree on the shape. Barnabas claimed it had a T-shape, 

while it seems that Irenaeus thought it to be a crux imissa (“Latin cross”). 

Do archeological findings point to a cross? 

Some sources point to the archeological evidence in defending statements about the 

form of the stauros of Jesus’ death. 

Yehohanan from Giv’at Ha-Mivtar 

Only one victim of impalement has ever been found. 32 The victim was a Jewish male 

who died in the middle of the first century CE and was found in a tomb in Jerusalem 

in 1968. He is usually referred to as Yehohanan, from the name inscribed on the 

tomb. 

Among Yehohanan’s bones were heel bones pierced by a rusty spike. It seemed that 

his two heels were nailed together to an upright stake, but the nail bent at the tip 

when it hit a knot in the wood. After he was dead, relatives had trouble pulling the 

nail out, so it was left in his heels at burial. Since one nail pierced both heel bones 

and it seemed that the leg bones had been cut at an angle, it was reported by N. 

Haas 33 that the victim likely was executed with his legs bent to one side. Haas also 

felt that a scratch on an arm bone indicated that the man’s arms were nailed to a 

crossbeam. 

In the next few years, scholars like Yigael Yadin began to question the conclusions 

that Haas had reached, Yadin even to the point that he suggested Yehohannan may 

have been hung upside down. 34 Finally, “A Reappraisal” was published by J. Zias 

32 J. McRay, Archaeology and the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House 

Company, 1997) 204. 

33 N. Haas, "Anthropological Observations on the Skeletal Remains from Giv'at Ha-Mivtar," Israel 

Exploration Journal 20 (1970) 38-59. 

34 Y. Yadin, "Epigraphy and Crucifixion," Israel Exploration Journal 23 (1973) 18-22.


and E. Sekeles. 35 They had studied the original evidence, photographs, casts, and 

radiographs of the bones. The conclusions they reached were quite different from the 

previous report: The nail was shorter than Haas had reported and thus would not 

have been long enough to pierce two heel bones and the wood. Pieces of bone had 

been misidentified. There was no bone from a second heel; the nail pierced only one 

heel. Some bone fragments were from another individual altogether. The scratched 

arm bone “was not convincing” evidence of nailing to a crossbeam; ‘in fact, two 

similar marks were observed on a leg bone; neither are connected with the 

crucifixion.’ 

What conclusions did this new analysis lead to? 

“Both the initial and final reconstruction of the crucifixion [by Haas] are 

technically and anatomically impossible when one considers the new evidence . 

. . We found no evidence of the left heel bone and calculated that the nail was 

sufficient for affixing only one heel bone . . . The lack of traumatic injury to the 

forearm and metacarpals of the hand seems to suggest that the arms of the 

condemned were tied rather than nailed.” 36 

Nobody can know with certainty even how many nails were used in Jesus’ case: 

“The exact number of nails used in Jesus’ crucifixion has been the subject of 

considerable speculation. In the earliest depictions of the crucifixion Jesus’ feet 

are shown separately nailed, but in later ones they are crossed and affixed to the 

upright with one nail.” 37 

We do know that his hands or arms were not simply bound, for Thomas later said: 

“Unless I see in his hands the print of the nails.” (John 20:25) That could have meant 

a nail through each hand, or the plural “nails” might have reference to nail prints in 

‘his hands and his feet.’ (See Luke 24:39) We cannot know precisely where the nails 

pierced him, though it obviously was in the area of his hands. The Scriptural account 

simply does not provide exact details, nor does it need to. And if scholars who have 

directly examined the bones of Yehohanan cannot even be sure how that corpse was 

positioned, it certainly does not prove how Jesus was positioned. 

35 J. Zias and E. Sekeles, "The Crucified Man from Giv'at Ha-Mivtar: A Reappraisal," Israel 

Exploration Journal 35/1 (1985) 22-7. 

36 Zias and Sekeles, "The crucified man from Giv'at ha-Mivtar: a reappraisal," 22-7. 

37 International standard Bible encyclopedia, I, 826.


From the published material, it seems clear that the remains of the victim say nothing 

about the position of the arms 38 . We do know that Yehohanan was nailed (and 

bound) to a stake of some form, but there is no way of telling how his arms were 

fixed, so this find seem to have no direct bearing on what we are discussing in this 

article, whether Jesus was hung upon a stake or a cross-like instrument. Even if it 

was evident that Yehohanan died with his arms stretched out on a crossbeam, it 

would of course no be a conclusive proof that Jesus did. 

Cross marks in ossuaries 

Decorated stone ossuaries appear in the first century B.C.E. and first century C.E. 

mainly in Jewish tombs in the vicinity of Jerusalem. These chests are associated with 

the custom of secondary interment in which the bones of the deceased were collected 

about a year after burial and placed in chests. Many contain inscriptions on their 

sides in Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek, or in two languages. The surface of the ossuary 

was generally divided into two fields by square frames formed by a wavy line 

between two straight ones. The squares were filled with a rosette motif, usually with 

six leaves, but there are considerable variations in its form as well as in the 

decoration of the surrounding surface by the use of dots, wreaths, etc. “Some contain 

representations of plants, buildings, or parts of them (columns, capitals), gates, and 

also crosshatchings (erroneously regarded by some scholars as symbols of 

Christianity).“ 39 

“The signs in the form of an X or a cross on the cover correspond normally to 

identical signs on the case, and have no religious significance; they indicate the 

proper position of the cover in order to close it correctly.” 40 

R. H. Smith in Palestine Exploration Quarterly published the most comprehensive 

report on these cross-like marks. His conclusion was clear: “Without question, the 

38 Zias and Sekeles based their assumptions on how the arms were fixed on the traditional view that a 

crossbeam was employed, not on any skeletal evidence. 

39 Encyclopedia Judaica (CD-ROM; ed. G. Wigoder; Shaker Heights, Ohio: Jewish Multimedia, 

1997) “ossuaries”. 

40 The Anchor Bible Dictionary, “Palestinian Funerary Inscriptions, (5.Ossuaries)”.


preponderance of crosses and cross-like marks which appear on ossuaries were 

placed there as guides for the matching of lids to receptacles.” 41 

We understand from this, that these cross-marks were just guide marks, like the way 

modern masons or carpenters may use cross-marks to aid them in their work, and that 

they have absolutely nothing to do with Jesus’ death. 

Cross symbols in catacombs and elsewhere 

The Anchor Bible Dictionary says about the findings of “Christian” art in catacombs 

and other places: 

“Near the end of the 2d century, about 180 C.E., pictorial representations began 

to appear which could be identified as Christian. The themes of these 

representations derived from Hellenistic culture, often utilizing the earliest 

symbols, though the context often reflected a biblical story or a liturgical 

practice. Christian pictures appeared simultaneously as plastic carvings on 

sarcophagi and as frescoes in catacombs and house churches.” 42 

When discussing early symbols used in Christendom, the cross is not mentioned. 

Why? The reason is simple: no such symbols have been found from the first 

centuries: 

”As far as yet examined, no cross is found of very early date in the Catacomb’s 

those existing there having been traced by pilgrims centuries later. Such signs of 

the cross as properly belong to a monogram of Christ (q.v) date back for their 

origin to the time of Constantine....” . ”...After his vision of the cross in heaven, 

Constantine (q.v) changed the standard of the Roman empire to cross.” 43 

This was written many years ago, but this is still the prevailing opinion on the dating 

of cross-symbols in the catacombs: ”The crucifixion is not represented in the 

Catacomb paintings at any time during the first four centuries. ”, 44 and Encyclopedia 

of Early Christianity states of older cross-symbols with a “Christian” mark that: 

”It is sometimes argued that the earliest appearance of Christian cruciform 

symbolism in intaglio form is pre-Constantinian, but the best-attested pieces, 

41 R. H. Smith, "The Cross Marks on Jewish Ossuaries," Palestine Exploration Quarterly (January- 

June 1974) 65. 

42 The Anchor Bible Dictionary, Art and Architecture (Early Christian Art). 

43 McClintock and Strong, Cyclopedia of Biblical, theological, and ecclesiastical literature. 

44 G. Pitt-Rivers, The Riddle of the "Labarum" and the Origin of Christian Symbols (Allen & Unwin, 

1966) 65.


such as the British Museum’s carnelian showing the crucifixion are on 

iconographic ground certainly fourth century or later”. 45 

It is no doubt very problematic to use cross-symbols findings from the first centuries 

as evidence of Christian activity, since we do not know whether they were made by 

Christians or Pagans 46 . The reason is that the cross is not a new, uniquely “Christian” 

symbol: 

“THE sign of the cross has been a symbol of great antiquity, present in nearly 

every known culture. It’s 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, depicted 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.” 47 

So when are the oldest ”Christian” cross-scenes dated? 

“One critical scene (the crucifixion of Jesus) and its accompanying symbol (the 

cross) did not occur in early Christian art. Probably the first scene of Jesus 

suffering occurs on the Vatican’s Passion sarcophagus, carved ca. mid-4th 

century.” 48 

Early cross-symbols are of no value in defining the form of Jesus’ stauros, since one 

cannot say if they are Christian or Pagan and since it is difficult to date them. It is 

commonly acknowledged that the cross first appears as a “Christian” symbol in the 

time of Constantine in the 4 th century. 49 

The cross symbol in ”The House of Peter” of Capernaum 

This house was built in the Late Hellenistic period. In the late first century C.E. it 

was changed into a "domus-ecclesia" or as it came to be called, beit-knesset (Hebrew 

for ”synagogue”), i.e. became a house for religious gatherings. In the fourth century 

the same "domus-ecclesia" was enlarged and was set apart from the rest of the town 

45 Encyclopedia of Early Christianity (ed. E. Ferguson; New York: Garland, 1990) 245. 

46 ”To start with, according to the usually accepted theory of the beginnings of Christian art, in 

paintings and the symbolism in the catacombs of Rome of the first three centuries there is nothing that 

can be distinguished as specifically or exclusively Christian rather than pagan or Jewish.” Pitt-Rivers, 

The riddle of the "Labarum" and the origin of Christian symbols, 69. 

47 G. F. Snyder, Ante Pacem: Archaeological Evidence of Church Life Before Constantine (Mercer, 

1991) 27. 

48 The Anchor Bible Dictionary, Art and Architecture (Early Christian Art). 

49 Most scholars now agree that the cross, as an artistic reference to the passion event, cannot be found 

prior to the time of Constantine” Snyder, Ante pacem: archaeological evidence of Church life before 

Constantine, 27.


through an imposing enclosure wall. In the second half of the fifth century an 

octagonal church was built upon the house of St. Peter and remained in use until the 

seventh century. 50 

It is argued that in this house one find one of the earliest examples of a “Christian” 

cross. As said in a discussion on the theme “The Date of the Cross” on the ANE- 

List 51 : ”According to the excavators, there are mid-1 st century A.D. graffiti at 

Capernaum in the House of St. Peter, including the cross as a Christian symbol 52 .” 

This graffiti was found on a wall that had been plastered several times. The graffiti 

was in several languages: Greek, Latin, Aramaic and Syrian. 

How certain can such graffiti be dated? Two answers on the ANE-list illustrate the 

problems of dating this particular finding: 

”Due to the fact that there is graffiti in a number of languages in this house, I 

doubt that the graffiti itself dates from the mid 1st century (although the house 

itself dates from Hellenistic times)” 53 

”Also, the house has undergone many different structural phases (the latest 

being the modern church cum UFO-landed-on-the-shores-of-the-Sea-of- 

Tiberias Phase), so a piece of graffito would be very difficult to date 

precisely” 54 

Snyder confirms this and gives this conclusion after having investigated the graffiti 

in this house: “An examination of the graffiti indicates all are later than the ‘peace’ 55 . 

Testa 56 is certain there are earlier ones to be discovered, but no positive results are 

forthcoming”. 57 

The cross-symbol found in “The house of St Peter” cannot be used as evidence for 

the form of the instrument of Jesus’ death. 

50 See Ancient Churches Revealed. Yoram Tsafrir. Israel Exploration Society 1993 Jerusalem. 

51 ANE (Ancient Near East) –list: ane@oi.uchicago.edu 

52 Fri, 26 Nov 1999 22:34:10 –0600 From: Donald R. Vance. 

53 Sat, 27 Nov 1999 07:56:24 EST From: Virgil Brown 

54 Mon, 29 Nov 1999 11:04:23 From: George Athas. 

55 By ”peace” Snyder refers to the time of Constantine. 

56 Emmanule Testa made this assertion in 1972 in “I graffiti della casa di S. Pietro”, Publicazione 

dello Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, No.19. Snyder wrote about this in 1985. We have not found 

anything that suggests any new discoveries. 

57 Snyder, Ante pacem: archaeological evidence of Church life before Constantine, 72.


Staurograms in early manuscripts 

The staurogram, which is a contraction of stauros, is found in the early NT 

manuscripts ‰66 (c.150) and ‰75 (c. 175). The contraction is worked into a cross 

like symbol. Along with the Christogram (chi-rho monogram), the staurogram came 

into widespread use in Greek, Latin and Coptic. 58 

In his discussion of the origin of the Christogram, 59 M. Black mentions the theory of 

J. Savignac 60 on the possibility of the staurogram being a Pagan borrowing, since that 

the staurogram closely resembles the Egyptian hieroglyph ankh, meaning “life”. This 

is seen as having contributed to this particular shape of the staurogram. Scriptural 

support for such a connection was sought in scriptures that make a connection 

between Christ and life. 61 

“Savignac admits a difficulty in the acceptance of a pagan symbol by a religion born 

out of Judaism. Gnostic Christianity, however, had no such scruples, and provided 

the channel for the introduction of the “pagan” symbol.” 62 

Nevertheless, even if p66 and p75 are very early and valuable as manuscripts, they 

are still late in relation to Jesus’ death. That they were both found in Egypt, fortifies 

the above argument that the staurograms could be a result of Gnostic influence, thus 

reducing their value as sources in this connection. 

How should stauros be translated in the NT today? 

A translator must take many factors into consideration when translating from an 

ancient language into a modern. It is a serious thing to translate the Word of God. In 

the foreword to the NWT we read: 

58 B. M. Metzger, Manuscripts of the Greek Bible: An Introduction to Greek Palaeography (New 

York: Oxford University Press, 1981) 84. 

59 M. Black, "The Chi-Rho Sign - Cristogram and/or Staurogram?" Apostolic History and the Gospel 

(ed. W. W. Gasque and R. P. M. Martin; Paternoster Press, 1970) 321. 

60 P 75 “Les Papyrus XIV et XV” in Scriptorium XVII (1963), Chronique, 50 ff. 

61 1 Cor 1:18, “For the speech about the torture stake is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to 

us who are being saved it is God's power”; Col 3:4, “When the Christ, our life, is made manifest, then 

YOU also will be made manifest with him in glory”; etc. 

62 Black, "The Chi-rho sign - cristogram and/or staurogram?" 321.


“It is a very responsible thing to translate the Holy Scriptures from their original 

languages of Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek into modern speech. Translating the 

Holy Scriptures means rendering into another language the thoughts and 

sayings of Jehovah God, the heavenly Author of this sacred library of sixty-six 

books that holy men of long ago were inspired to write down for our benefit 

today. 

That is a very sobering thought. The translators of this work, who fear and love 

the Divine Author of the Holy Scriptures, feel toward Him a special 

responsibility to transmit his thoughts and declarations as accurately as possible. 

They also feel a responsibility toward the searching readers who depend upon a 

translation of the inspired Word of the Most High God for their everlasting 

salvation.” 63 

In this sense, we have now come to the climax of this discussion. How should 

stauros be translated? 

So far we have discussed stauros and stauroô, and we have seen that the Early 

Church Fathers and archaeological evidence is of no real value when it comes to how 

stauros should be translated. But what about the best source that we have, the Bible 

itself? Does it give us a lead? 

Do we find any clues within the NT text? 

The first occurrence of the verb stauroô is Matthew 20:19, where Jesus foretold what 

would happen to him. In his conversations with his disciples Jesus probably spoke 

Hebrew (or possibly Aramaic), so which word did he use on this occasion? It is 

interesting that Biblical Hebrew does not have any word which means «cross», i.e. a 

pole with a cross beam. It has the verb talah with the meaning «to hang» and the 

noun ‘ets with the generic meaning, «tree» 64 . So Jesus evidently used the verb talah, 

which does not describe the shape of the instrument on which Jesus was to be 

hanged. Matthew knew the shape of the stauros to which Jesus was nailed when he 

wrote his account, but even if it were a stake with a cross beam, it would definitely 

be an anachronism to translate stauroô in this verse with «crucify», at a time when 

nobody knew the shape of the stake on which Jesus was hanged. 

63 New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures - with References (Revised edition; trans. New 

World Bible Translation Committe; New York: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1984). 

64 Aramaic is similar to Hebrew in this regard and neither has any word for «cross» or «crucify»:


In a modern Hebrew-English New Testament 65 we find the verb tsalab where the 

Greek text has stauroô. In the English part of this New Testament it is translated as 

«crucify», and this is also the meaning of the word in Modern Hebrew 66 . However, 

the verb tsalab (or the corresponding noun) did not exist in Biblical Hebrew, but we 

find it both in the Aramaic Targums and in Rabbinic Hebrew and Aramaic. It is 

interesting to note that the rabbis did not use tsalab with the modern meaning 

«crucify». According to Jastrow the verb both in Hebrew and Aramaic means «to 

hang, impale». 67 Some of the examples he gives and his translation is as follows: 

Tosefta Gittin 4:11: «nailed to the stake»; Midrash Rabba to Esther where 

Deuteronomy 28:66 is referred to: «who is taken out to be impaled»; Midrash Rabba 

to Leviticus «is going to be hanged». Thus the Jewish literature after the time of 

Jesus continued to use terms for hanging (on a stake) which did not point to a 

particular shape of the instrument on which one was hanged. Another example of this 

is Shem Tob’s Hebrew text of Matthew from the 14 th century. In Matthew 27:32 the 

noun tseliba corresponds to stauros. Shem Tob realized that this was a generic word 

for an instrument on which someone was hanged, and therefore he adds an 

explanation in his text. G. Howard’s literal translation is as follows: «They 

compelled him to carry the gallows [tseliba], that is «The Cross».» 68 So we see that 

just like stauros and crux, tseliba retained it’s original meaning, “stake”, well into 

the Middle Ages. 

Based on the language of Jesus, we may draw the conclusion that the use of stauroô 

and stauros before the death of Jesus did not indicate a particular shape of the 

instrument referred to. But do we have anything written after Jesus’ death that can 

tell us something about this? 

65 The New Testament in Hebrew and English (Edgware, England: The Society for distributing the 

Holy Scriptures to the Jews, n.d.). 

66 See New Comprehensive Shilo Pocked Dictionary. Compiled by Zevi Scharfstein, 1973. 

67 M. Jastrow, A Dictionary of the Targumim, The Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic 

Literature (New York: Judaica Press, 1989) 1282. 

68 G. Howard, Hebrew Gospel of Matthew (2d ed.; Macon, Georgia: Mercer, 1995) 145.


Use of Greek word xylon 

The Greek noun xylon was used by Luke, Paul and Peter (Ac 5:30; 10:39; 13:29; Gal 

3:13; 1 Pet 2:24) in reference to the instrument of Jesus’ execution. Is it possible that 

an understanding of xylon can give us a clue as to the shape of this stauros? 

According to the dictionaries, xylon means, “tree”, “something made of wood” etc 69 . 

However, they also say that in some contexts having to do with execution, it means 

“stake”, “upright pale”. Let us therefore investigate how xylon is to be understood in 

this context. 

In LXX the Hebrew ´ets, or the corresponding Aramaic ´a, is translated with xylon. 

In Ezra 6:11, the LXX reads xylon as description of a beam from a house that was to 

be used for execution. Further, in Esther 5:14 we read that Haman commanded that a 

xylon should be made for Mordechai’s hanging. We therefore have scriptural 

evidence that xylon not only meant a “tree”, but likely was a “stake”. 70 

´There is absolutely no evidence from the 1 st century that xylon, when used in 

connection with executions, had a technical meaning different from a pole of tree. 

Josephus confirms this in his comment to Esther 5:14, 6:4, and 7:9,10. Where LXX 

uses xylon, Josephus uses stauros. (Interestingly, in Esther 7:9 LXX uses stauroô in 

naming the form of execution). Genesis 40:19 is also interesting, Joseph prophesizes 

that the baker’s head would be hung on a xylon. Josephus describes this as 

anastaurothenta (from the verb anastauroô). These examples from Josephus indicate 

that xylon and stauros was regarded as synonym in the 1 st century in some contexts. 

One interesting place for us in this discussion is Gal 3:13 where Paul used xylon for 

Jesus’ stauros in his quotation of De 21:22,23 where LXX uses xylon. How should 

69 xyŒlon means living or dead “wood,” anything made of wood, e.g., a “stick,” “cudgel,” or “club,” 

also a “bench” or “table.” As an instrument of punishment or restraint it is a kind of wooden collar. It 

is also used for the “stake” or “tree” to which malefactors are fastened. Figuratively xyŒlon is an 

“unfeeling” person. The LXX often uses xyŒla for trees, but also has xyŒlon for wood, used for cultic or 

secular purposes. Theological dictionary of the New Testament: Translated from Theologisches 

Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament. 

70 (Ezra 6:11) A beam from a house must be taken as a “stake” (Esther 5:14). Persians administer the 

execution, and they used stakes, see Nelson's New Illustrated Bible Dictionary: An Authoritative One-Volume 

Reference Work on the Bible with Full Color Illustrations (Electronic edition of the revised edition of Nelson's 

illustrated Bible dictionary; Logos Library System; ed. R. F. Youngblood; Thames & Hudson, 1995). and The 

Anchor Bible Dictionary.


xylon be understood here? TNDT states in a footnote: “Xylon. ”(...) Deut 21:22 refers 

to the dead body, which after execution in some other way (stoning, beheading etc) 

was hung to a tree or stake (kremahte auton epi xulon) in order to expose the 

condemned to the shame of public exposure even after death.” So we see that TDNT 

regards xylon as “a tree or stake”. 

In line with this many translators choose “tree” for xylon, but there are also some 

translators of Gal 3:13 who sees xylon as more than a mere tree and use “stake” or 

“pale” instead. A very recent example of this we find in the new 1999 translation of 

the Bible by the Swedish Bible Society, which uses “träpåle” (wooden pole). 71 

In conclusion we can say that there is no doubt that the generic meaning of xylon is a 

tree, and that there is no indication whatsoever that it has ever meant anything like a 

pole with a crossbeam. On the contrary, xylon can in some contexts be found as a 

synonymous with stauros, so even if the word in it self does not make it a stake, a 1 st 

century reader may have understood it as such in the context of passages like Gal 

3:13. 72 Henry Ward concludes, “Zulon and stauros are alike the single stick, the pale, 

or the stake, neither more nor less, on which Jesus was impaled, or crucified.” 73 

Should stauros be translated with “stake” or “cross”? 

After having discussed the meaning of stauros and crux, we have seen that their 

primary meaning in the NT is a “stake”. In Modern Greek stauros can still mean a 

stake, but this understanding is now secondary; the primary meaning is a cross. So 

we see than on the stream of time, stauros has changed from meaning “stake” to 

primarily meaning “cross”. 

We can illustrate the case of stauros with the case of the English word “worship”: 

71 The 1993 German Einheitsübersetzung has “Pfahl” (pole/stake). See also the translations of 

Schindler (Danish) and Brun (Norwegian). 

72 “I think I am right in saying that the word staurov" does not properly mean what we understand by 

a cross. It has indeed been doubted by some whether the staurov" on which Christ was put to death 

was anything more than an upright beam or log of wood fixed in the earth. The use of the word ‘tree’ 

(xuvlon) by Peter and Paul seems rather to favor this view. It is, in fact, only in later Greek that the 

word staurov" is used to denote the Roman instrument to for inflicting the death penalty.” J. Palmer, 

"Cross Bearing," The Expository Times 14 (1903) 288. 

73 H. D. Ward, History of the Cross: The Pagan Origin, and Idolatrous Adoption and Worship of the 

Image (London: Nisbet, 1871) 14.


“Worship began life as a compound noun meaning virtually ‘worthiness.’ It 

was formed from the adjective worth and the noun suffix –ship ‘state, 

condition,’ and at first was used for ‘distinction, credit, dignity.’ This soon 

passed into ‘respect, reverence,’ but it was not used in specifically religious 

contexts until the 13 th century. The verb dates from the 12 th century.” 74 

Down to the 17 th century, worship meant to show due honor and respect, to human 

beings as well as to God. “Then shalt thou have worship in the presence of them that 

sit at meat with thee” (Luke 14:10, KJV) means simply “you will be honored. …” 

Wyclif even translated John 12:26, “If ony man serue me, my fadir schal worschip 

hym”; Tyndale changed the last clause to “him will my father honoure,” and this is 

the wording of the subsequent versions. 

The problem of translation in the OT is complicated by the fact that the Hebrew verb 

h|wah may mean bow down, make obeisance, or worship. Coverdale rendered 1 

Kings 2:19, “The kynge stode up, and wente to mete her, and worshipped her.” KJV 

has, “The king rose up to meet her, and bowed himself unto her.” An Aramaic verb 

of similar range appears in Daniel 2:46, where KJV says that “the king 

Nebuchadnezzar fell upon his face, and worshipped Daniel” and RSV has “… and 

did homage to Daniel.” 

In the NT the Greek verb proskuneoµ means to kneel or prostrate oneself in honor or 

supplication of a human being, or to do this in worship of God. The problem of the 

translator is to find the right English word in the light of the context. For example, 

Cornelius fell down at Peter’s feet and worshiped him as a messenger of God, but 

Peter lifted him up, saying, “Stand up; I too am a man” (Acts 10:25). Where honor is 

paid to Jesus Christ, some modern translations like RSV translates proskuneoµ by 

“worship” in Matthew 2:2, 8, 11 (the visit of the wise men); Matthew 4:9, 10 and 

Luke 4:7, 8 (the temptation by Satan the devil); Matthew 14:33; Mark 5:6; John 9:38; 

Matthew 28:9, 17 (meetings with his disciples after his resurrection). In cases of 

personal requests made of Jesus, it translates proskuneoµ by “kneel before” (Matthew 

8:2; 9:18; 15:25; 20:20). 

74 J. Ayto, Dictionary of Word Origins (New York: Arcade Publishing, 1990) 577.


The older meaning of worship lingers in the title “your worship” or “his worship” 

applied to magistrates or mayors, and in the honorific adjective “worshipful” which 

appears in various rituals and lists of protocol. 75 

The point of the illustration is this; when the NKJV (1990) translates Mt 28:17 as 

“When they saw Him, they worshiped Him”, there is no doubt about what the 

translators want to convey. But when Tyndale (1526) says, “they worshipped him”, 

we cannot be sure what Tyndale wanted to convey to his readers, since he translated 

proskuneoµ with “worship” in 54 of 60 occurrences of the word 76 . This holds true for 

all subsequent revisers and translators, including the translators of the 1611 King 

James Version 77 , since we do not know exactly when “worship” turned from 

meaning “honor” to the modern meaning of the word. 

We can apply this illustration to stauros. When did it turn from meaning, “stake”, to 

primarily meaning “cross” in the modern sense of the word? 78 Even if we could 

prove that stauros meant cross after NT times, we would not have proved that it 

meant so when the NT was written. 

After now having focused on the Greek aspect, let us turn our attention to English, 

and the words “stake”, “cross” and “impalement”. 

Stake 

Stake comes from the Old English staca, ultimately from the Old German stake, and 

is primarily defined as “a pointed piece of wood or other material driven or designed 

to be driven into the ground”. Webster’s gives as the secondary definition “a post or 

other support to which a person is bound for execution”. 79 

Even as late as the time of the Reformation many of the martyrs died at the stake. Of 

William Tyndale, Prof. David Daniell says, "He was strangled at the stake, and his 

75 R. F. Bridges and L. A. Weigle, King James Bible Word Book: A Contemporary Dictionary of 

Curious and Archaic Words Found in the King James Version of the Bible (Logos Library System 

electronic edition; Thomas Nelson, 1997) worship. 

76 The exceptions are Mt 18:26; Lk 4:8, 12:20; Ac 8:27, 24:11 and Heb 11:21. 

77 The translators of KJV in fact used “worship” for proskuneo even more than Tyndale. 

78 And when did the Latin crux turn from meaning, “stake”, to primarily meaning “cross”? 

79 Webster's Third New International Dictionary of the English Language, Unabridged (Chicago: 

Encyclopædia Britannica, 1986).


dead body then burned." 80 Justus Lipsius also illustrates such a burning at the stake 

in his book De Cruce Liber Tres. 

Cross 

Cross comes from the Old English cros, which replaced the earlier Old English rÜd. 

Cros was borrowed from the Old Irish cros, generally thought to come from the 

Scandinavian kross (compare the Old Norwegian kross). Kross was itself from Latin 

crux, genitive crucis. 81 

”The word ’cross’ is our translation (derived from the Vulgate ’crux’) of the Greek 

word ’stauros,’ which means a stake, pole or post.” 82 

“The English term “cross” prejudices our understanding, for it gives the image 

of two lines crossing each other. Neither the Greek stauros nor the Latin crux 

necessarily has that meaning; they both refer to a stake to which people could be 

attached in various ways: impaling, hanging, nailing, and tying.” 83 

We stated the question: how should stauros be translated in the NT today? “Stake” is 

a modern word that corresponds exactly to the ancient meaning of stauros. “Cross” 

as translation for stauros is based on a tradition that Jesus was nailed to a stauros 

with a particular shape. We have shown that there exists no evidence to support this 

tradition, so stauros should be translated as “stake”. 84 

80 D. Daniell, William Tyndale, a Biography (Yale: Yale University Press, 1994) 382. 

81 The Barnhart Dictionary of Etymology (ed. R. K. Barnhart and S. Steinmetz; New York: H.W. 

Wilson, 1988) cross. 

82 The New Testament (or Covenant) of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ (Revised edition; trans. E. 

Cunnington; London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1935) 522-23. 

83 R. E. Brown, The Death of the Messiah (New York: Doubleday, 1994) 945. 

84 One reason why the NWT uses “torture stake” rather than just “stake” may be the meaning of the 

Latin verb crucio (see page 4); “to torment”, “to torture”. The punishment of the crux (stauros) was a 

torture that could not be compared with anything else. This is illustrated by how Roman law ranked 

the severity of various forms of execution. The jurist Julius Paulus, in his work Sentenia, puts crux at 

the head of the three summa supplicia, followed by crematio (burning) and decollatio (decapitation). 

Damnatio ad bestias (wild animals) sometimes replaced the latter Hengel, Crucifixion in the ancient 

world and the folly of the message of the cross, 33. Execution on the stauros/crux was regarded as so 

cruel that Roman law prohibited its use on Roman citizens (except in extraordinary cases), and it was 

called the “slave’s punishment”. So, in effect it really was a “torture stake”.


Impalement 

Some have criticized the use of “impalement”, claiming, “The English dictionary 

does not give nailing as a meaning for “impale” 85 

We note however what one updated authority says about “impale”: “to fix in a 

position by piercing or piercing through with something pointed… (a butterfly 

impaled by a pin) … to fix in a position as if by piercing or piercing through in such 

a manner”, 86 and W.W.Skeat gives “to fix on a stake”, 87 so it did not mean only that 

the stake actually went through the person. If impalement can mean to “fix in a 

position by piercing” or “to fix on a stake”, it can clearly be used for Jesus’ nailing 

(piercing) to the stauros. 

Other authors have also used “impalement” in this context: “The Greek word for Lat. 

Crux or Cross is stauros, which means a pile or stake, and was used for the Roman 

mode of death by crucifixion, but should more strictly mean impaling.” 88 (Also 

remember that M. Jastrow used “impale” when he translated rabbinic literature, see 

page Error! Bookmark not defined.). 

What about “crucifixion”? Is that word more clearly understood? 

“Crucifixion” means, “fixing on a cross”, and is thus linked to “cross”. As we have 

seen, “cross” in the modern sense is a stake with a crossbeam, so “crucifixion” is not 

the same as stauroô. But the word “crucifixion” is often used in an imprecise way: 

“Crucifixion originally was the impaling of a person on an upright pointed stake”. 89 

In this example we see that impaling on a stake is called crucifixion and “even the 

85 J. P. Lewis, The English Bible, from KJV to NIV (2d ed.; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1991) 231, also see 

Countess 1987: 87. 

86 Webster's third new international dictionary of the English language, unabridged. 

87 W. W. Skeat, An Etymological Dictionary of the English Language (New ed.rev.; Oxford: Oxford, 

1953) 193. 

88 Pitt-Rivers, The riddle of the "Labarum" and the origin of Christian symbols, 80. 

89 The Encyclopedia Americana (International edition; Grolier, 1987) 8, 246.


placing of an head on a single upright pole has been called crucifixion”. 90 So we see 

than even if “impalement” can be misunderstood, so can “crucifixion”. 91 

What is biased translation? 

R. Furuli says of bias in Bible translation that it “is characterized by renderings that 

either 1) contradict lexicon, grammar or syntax; or 2) definitely weaken or distort the 

meaning by addition or subtraction of unwarranted semantic elements in order to 

promote the translator’s own theology.” 92 

Can translating stauros with “stake” be called biased from this definition? No. It is 

not contrary to lexicon, grammar or syntax, and it does not weaken the meaning by 

addition or subtraction of unwarranted semantic elements. 

The translators of the NWT give the following reasons, after having discussed why 

they chose to translate stauros “torture stake”, and not “cross”: 

”Evidence is, therefore, completely lacking that Jesus Christ was crucified on 

two pieces of timber placed at right angles. We do not want to add anything to 

God’s written Word by inserting the pagan cross-concept into the inspired 

Scriptures, but render stau· ros' and xy'lon according to the simplest 

meanings.” 93 

This point we have also seen in this discussion; there is no real rationale to translate 

stauros in the NT as anything but “stake”. 

Instead we can turn it all around and ask: can translating stauros with “cross” be 

called biased from this definition mentioned above? Yes. It is not necessarily 

contrary to lexicon, grammar or syntax, but it does weaken the meaning by addition 

of unwarranted semantic elements. What it adds is a meaning having to do with the 

shape of the instrument that is not found within the NT text, as we have previously 

90 McClintock and Strong, Cyclopedia of Biblical, theological, and ecclesiastical literature, 

Crucifixion. 

91 What seems evident is that the English language seems to be rather poor when it comes to a good 

modern translation for stauroô, since both “impale” and “crucify” may have their shortcomings. In 

Norwegian and Danish we find the word pælfeste, “fasten to a stake”, which is used in the Norwegian 

and Danish translations of the NWT. 

92 R. Furuli, The Role of Theology and Bias in Bible Translation: With a Special Look at the New 

World Translation of Jehovah's Witnesses (Huntington Beach, CA: Elihu Books, 1999) 60. 

93 New world translation of the Holy Scriptures - with references, 1578.


discussed. Furthermore, the word “cross” is so heavily loaded with theological 

meaning and understanding, all developed long after the NT text was formed, that it 

is almost impossible for the reader not “to read back into” or get an understanding 

that expands upon the original text. In this way translating stauros with “cross” is 

paraphrase, as opposed to the literal translation: “stake”. 

If someone chooses to translate with “cross” the burden of proof is on him or her. If 

one chooses to translate with “stake” one should really not have to defend anything, 

since this is the original and literal meaning of “stauros”. The great irony is of course 

that in the monumental criticism of the NWT’s use of “stake”, this is turned upside 

down. That is because in theology it is the majority that define what is orthodox and 

what is heresy, not the Bible. We find that these words stated by J.D. Parsons in 1896 

still hold true today: 

"There is not a single sentence in any of the numerous writings forming the 

New Testament, which, in the original Greek, bears even indirect evidence to 

the effect that the stauros used in the case of Jesus was other than an ordinary 

stauros; much less to the effect that it consisted, not of one piece of timber, but 

of two pieces nailed together in the form of a cross . . .. It is not a little 

misleading upon the part of our teachers to translate the word stauros as 'cross' 

when rendering the Greek documents of the Church into our native tongue, and 

to support that action by putting 'cross' in our lexicons as the meaning of stauros 

without carefully explaining that that was at any rate not the primary meaning 

of the word in the days of the Apostles, did not become its primary signification 

till long afterwards, and became so then, if at all, only because, despite the 

absence of corroborative evidence, it was for some reason or other assumed that 

the particular stauros upon which Jesus was executed had that particular 

shape." 94 

Conclusion 

As we stated in the introduction, our aim was to demonstrate that to translate stauros 

as used in the NT with “stake”, or “torture stake” as NWT does, is a valid translation. 

We believe that we have reached our aim by demonstrating that: 

• The original meaning of stauros is “stake”, and no one knows when it 

changed from being primarily regarded as a stake, to chiefly meaning “cross” 

as it does in Modern Greek. 

94 J. Parsons, The Non-Christian Cross (London, 1896) 23, 24.


• The Latin crux originally had the same meaning as stauros, and that we 

cannot say when crux became a “cross” in the modern sense. 

• There were many variations on the theme in Roman and even NT times, and 

that no uniform way of stauroô can be established. 

• There are no archaeological findings that can tell us, or even indicate, 

decisively the form of the stauros Jesus died upon. 

• We do not have any trustworthy evidence from the Early Church Fathers. 

• It is an anachronism to translate the first occurrence of stauros in the NT with 

“cross”. 

• The use of xylon by Paul, Peter and John indicate that the stauros was a stake. 

• Finally, “cross” is a very loaded word. It brings up all sorts of connotations 

from mythology and history, most of them not very desirable to Christians. 

“Stake”, on the other hand, has no such role and is certainly a more neutral 

word to use. From this point of view, it would seem that to translate stauros 

with “cross” is much more a result of “sectarian bias” than to translate 

“stake”. But as we well know, it is the victors that write history, and the 

religious dominators that define what is orthodox and what is heresy, or 

“sectarian”. 

We find the words of E.E. Cunnington a fitting final conclusion for this article: 

“There may, or may not, have been a second and horizontal piece. To say that our 

Lord was ‘crucified’ on a single upright beam, the hands being brought together over 

the head, would be in perfect harmony with the gospel narrative; and does not affect 

in the least degree any article of faith.” 95 

Ï 

95 The New Testament (or Covenant) of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, Appendix 12, 523.


Cited works 

21st Century New Testament: The Literal/Free Dual Translation (trans. V. Capel; Bristol: Insight 

Press, ca. 1998). 

The Anchor Bible Dictionary (Logos Library System electronic edition; ed. D. N. Freedman; New 

York: Doubleday, 1997). 

"Archæology of the Cross and the Crucifix," in The Catholic Encyclopedia (1999). 

J. Ayto, Dictionary of Word Origins (New York: Arcade Publishing, 1990). 

The Barnhart Dictionary of Etymology (ed. R. K. Barnhart and S. Steinmetz; New York: H.W. 

Wilson, 1988). 

J. Barr, The Semantics of Biblical Languages (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1975). 

M. Black, "The Chi-Rho Sign - Cristogram and/or Staurogram?" Apostolic History and the Gospel 

(ed. W. W. Gasque and R. P. M. Martin; Paternoster Press, 1970) 319-27. 

R. F. Bridges and L. A. Weigle, King James Bible Word Book: A Contemporary Dictionary of 

Curious and Archaic Words Found in the King James Version of the Bible (Logos Library 

System electronic edition; Thomas Nelson, 1997). 

R. E. Brown, The Death of the Messiah (New York: Doubleday, 1994). 

D. Daniell, William Tyndale, a Biography (Yale: Yale University Press, 1994). 

The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary (Reprint; ed. A. Myers; Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. 

Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1989). 

The Encyclopedia Americana (International edition; Grolier, 1987). 

Encyclopedia Judaica (CD-ROM; ed. G. Wigoder; Shaker Heights, Ohio: Jewish Multimedia, 1997). 

Encyclopedia of Early Christianity (ed. E. Ferguson; New York: Garland, 1990). 

R. Furuli, The Role of Theology and Bias in Bible Translation: With a Special Look at the New World 

Translation of Jehovah's Witnesses (Huntington Beach, CA: Elihu Books, 1999). 

J. B. Green, "Death of Jesus," Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels (ed. J. B. Green, McKnight Scot 

and I. H. Marshall; Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1992) 146-63. 

N. Haas, "Anthropological Observations on the Skeletal Remains from Giv'at Ha-Mivtar," Israel 

Exploration Journal 20 (1970) 38-59. 

Harper's Bible Dictionary (Logos Library System electronic edition; ed. P. J. Achtemeier; San 

Francisco: Harper & Row, 1996). 

M. Hengel, Crucifixion in the Ancient World and the Folly of the Message of the Cross (Philadelphia: 

Fortress Press, 1977). 

G. Howard, Hebrew Gospel of Matthew (2d ed.; Macon, Georgia: Mercer, 1995). 

International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (Fully revised; ed. G. W. Bromiley; Grand Rapids, 

Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1979). 

The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1981). 

H. Jahn, The Exegeses Ready Research Bible (2d ed.; Iowa Falls: World Bible Publishers, 1993). 

M. Jastrow, A Dictionary of the Targumim, The Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic 

Literature (New York: Judaica Press, 1989). 

Jewish New Testament (trans. D. H. Stern; Jerusalem: Jewish New Testament Publications, 1989). 

K. Lake, The Apostolic Fathers, with an English Translation (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard 

University Press, 1877). 

C. T. Lewis and C. Short, A Latin Dictionary: Founded on Andrew's Edition of Freund's Latin 

Dictionary (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1894). 

J. P. Lewis, The English Bible, from KJV to NIV (2d ed.; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1991). 

H. G. Liddell and R. Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon (Revised and augmented throughout by Sir 

Henry Stuart Jones with the assistance of Roderick McKenzie; 9th ed.; Oxford: Clarendon 

Press, 1978). 

J. McClintock and J. Strong, Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature 

(Reprint; Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1981). 

J. McRay, Archaeology and the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House 

Company, 1997). 

B. M. Metzger, Manuscripts of the Greek Bible: An Introduction to Greek Palaeography (New York: 

Oxford University Press, 1981).


Nelson's New Illustrated Bible Dictionary: An Authoritative One-Volume Reference Work on the Bible 

with Full Color Illustrations (Electronic edition of the revised edition of Nelson's illustrated 

Bible dictionary; Logos Library System; ed. R. F. Youngblood; Thames & Hudson, 1995). 

New Bible Dictionary (Logos Library System electronic edition of 2nd edition; ed. J. Douglas; 

Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House, 1996). 

The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (ed. C. Brown; Grand Rapids, 

Michigan: Regency Reference Library; Zondervan Publishing House, 1986). 

The New Testament (or Covenant) of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ (Revised edition; trans. E. 

Cunnington; London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1935). 

The New Testament in Hebrew and English (Edgware, England: The Society for distributing the Holy 

Scriptures to the Jews, n.d.). 

New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures - with References (Revised edition; trans. New World 

Bible Translation Committe; New York: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1984). 

J. Palmer, "Cross Bearing," The Expository Times 14 (1903) 288. 

J. Parsons, The Non-Christian Cross (London, 1896). 

G. Pitt-Rivers, The Riddle of the "Labarum" and the Origin of Christian Symbols (Allen & Unwin, 

1966). 

W. W. Skeat, An Etymological Dictionary of the English Language (New ed.rev.; Oxford: Oxford, 

1953). 

R. H. Smith, "The Cross Marks on Jewish Ossuaries," Palestine Exploration Quarterly (January-June 

1974). 

G. F. Snyder, Ante Pacem: Archaeological Evidence of Church Life Before Constantine (Mercer, 

1991). 

Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Abridged in One Volume (Abridged in one volume by 

Geoffrey W. Bromiley; Logos Library System electronic edition; ed. G. Kittel and G. 

Friedrich; trans. G. W. Bromiley; Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing 

Company, 1996). 

Theological Dictionary of the New Testament: Translated from Theologisches Wörterbuch Zum 

Neuen Testament (Reprint; ed. G. Kittel and G. Friedrich; trans. G. W. Bromiley; Grand 

Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1995). 

W. Vine, M. F. Unger and W. White, "Cross, Crucify," Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old 

and New Testament Words (Logos Library System electronic edition; Thomas Nelson, 1997). 

H. D. Ward, History of the Cross: The Pagan Origin, and Idolatrous Adoption and Worship of the 

Image (London: Nisbet, 1871). 

Webster's Third New International Dictionary of the English Language, Unabridged (Chicago: 

Encyclopædia Britannica, 1986). 

Y. Yadin, "Epigraphy and Crucifixion," Israel Exploration Journal 23 (1973) 18-22. 

J. Zias, "Crucifixion in Antiquity: The Evidence" (1998). 

J. Zias and E. Sekeles, "The Crucified Man from Giv'at Ha-Mivtar: A Reappraisal," Israel Exploration 

Journal 35/1 (1985) 22-7.

Impaled on a stake — a result of sectarian bias?

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?