Talk:Instrument of Jesus' crucifixion

Cross information overwhelming?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Modern opinions and early Christians

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As I understand it, Bromiley:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So why not to quote them both?..

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

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

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

Crossbeam as σταυρός?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What about Paul?

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

• [1]
• Book by Ehrman
• [2]

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

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

Jehovah's Witnesses

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

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

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

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

References cross:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Constantine became Sole Emperor venerated the Solar Wheel.

Literal Translation

---

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

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

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

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

Title of this article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tree

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

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

Interwiki links

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recent sources

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

Redirect from Jehovah's Witnesses page

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

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

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

Enoch Powell

I added these words to the article:

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

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

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

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

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

what is this dispute about?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Content fork?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WP: Death Assessment Commentary

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

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

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

The word "crucifixion"?

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

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

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

Copy-paste of source material

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rewrite, re-angle proposal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Content fork

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion?

OK so after reading this article I'm left confused. Did he die on a cross, a steak, or on a tree? Maybe he died in a car accident for all I know. This article is confusing and should be deleted.--Ironious (talk) 05:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

He almost certainly did not die on a steak. Aside from that, as stated in the sections above, this article should indeed be deleted.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:18, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I cannot see any reason for deleting this article, and I am NOT a Jehovah's Witness. --- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ekinikulainen (talk • contribs) 11:32, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Page name

At the AfD, there was some discussion about renaming this article. The way I see it, there are two potential issues with the title.

1) The term "dispute" may imply a greater degree of controversy than exists in reality

2) The phrase "Jesus' execution method" does not accurately reflect the scope of the article (it could reflect a difference of opinion between say crucifixion and stoning, for example).

Any thoughts? --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

My suggestion of Method of Jesus' execution seemed popular at the AfD, but I take your second point. How about Nature of Jesus' crucifixion? StAnselm (talk) 01:02, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

How about "Form of the gibbet of Jesus" or "Jehovah's Witnesses' doctrine on the Christian cross"? Esoglou (talk) 08:27, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I think:

• The term dispute should go. The topic is broader than that.
• The term Method as suggested by St Anselm originally works, given that Nature makes it sound like a Greenpeace issue.
• Gibbet is far too narrow, given that there are other issues, e.g. ropes vs nails, standing platform, etc. as briefly discussed on the Crucifixion of Jesus page, but need expansion.

I think something like StAnselm's popular suggestion may work. In any case I will start a Request and that may settle it. By the way Thaddeus, there is a year old Merge request here that should be closed now. I did not want to close it given that I commented there, but could you do that so we can move on? Thanks. History2007 (talk) 15:05, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I closed the discussion, as per your request. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:13, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

New page structure

Regarding the new page structure, I think it should logically separate the components, i.e.:

• Shape of gibbet: It was either a cross, or a straight pole, etc. That should be just one section.
• Use of nails and ropes: That is separate from the gibbet, could have used nails and/or ropes in either case. It also brings about the positioning of the nails (if any) in either case, on the hands or the wrists, etc.
• The standing platform: This is again independent of the shape of the gibbet, or the use of nails vs ropes, or a combination thereof.

These are 3 separate items, of course. Any others? And probably a section on the artistic depictions with nails, ropes, platform and combinations etc. will make it clear to the reader. I added a small section on that, but it can really get expanded, so the scope becomes wider. History2007 (talk) 15:50, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I doubt if there is enough material on points 2 and 3 to make it worthwhile including them. In particular, I believe - without (yet) having checked - that the suppedaneum is a late addition to imagery of the crucifixion of Jesus and that nobody seriously maintains that it must historically have been used for his crucifixion. Nails are explicitly mentioned in the New Testament in relation to the crucifixion of Jesus, and so I don't believe anyone seriously maintains that ropes, not nails, were used for crucifying him. Perhaps the below request for a move is premature.

The old 1845 Kitto book now cited in the article does not even consider the hypothesis of ropes being used for Jesus, while on the number of nails it says: "Much time and trouble has been wasted in disputing as to whether three or four nails were used in fastening the Lord to his cross." Should we waste more time and trouble on that question, which does not seem to be a live one today? Kitto, on page 591, considered quite ridiculous the notion that there were more than four, so does such an idea deserve any mention whatever here? The idea that nails in hands could not support the body has, I think, been used to advance the idea that the nails were driven through the wrists, not the palms of the hands, rather than to advance the idea of a suppedaneum or hypopodium in crucifixion, whether in general or in the particular case of Jesus. Practically the only live issue is that of the form of the gibbet of Jesus, although also, and to a much lesser extent, the palms/wrists question.

A Google Books link, with page number, would, I think, be much more useful to a reader than a bare ISBN that only leads to an indication of certain libraries, with perhaps none within easy reach of the reader, in which a book might be found. Esoglou (talk) 18:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

But the fact that the above had to be typed suggests that the issues are far from clear to a reader at first reading. Hence a section will be needed. History2007 (talk) 18:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I just can't imagine anybody would envisage 14 nails being used in crucifying Jesus if it hadn't been mentioned, as now, in the article. Esoglou (talk) 18:47, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

But were there just two nails? Or just one nail in the hands and none elsewhere? Were ropes used at all? History2007 (talk) 19:02, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus. There seems to be a lot of discussion and no clear consensus. Given that we have another discussion open, closing this one seems appropriate. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:45, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Dispute about Jesus' execution method → Jesus' execution method – The issues were discussed on the recent Afd, and also just above here. The rename is the removal of the two words "dispute about" to give the article a broader context. History2007 (talk) 15:07, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Rename, but differently. I agree the current title ("Dispute about Jesus' execution method") is unnecessarily long. But both the current and suggested article titles imply that there might have been some "execution method" wholly unrelated to a crux immissa or crux simplex or similiar; to my knowledge there has been no such speculation and it seems best to avoid an implied invitation to include discussion of "the method" at this article. Alternate titles I'll suggest:
* Jesus' execution hypothesis or Jesus' gibbet hypothesis (or hypotheses).
My latter suggestion is more obviously different from the existing article "Stolen body hypothesis".--AuthorityTam (talk) 18:09, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

But gibbet would ignore the ropes, nails, platform issue, etc. So you should probably avoid that to make things simple. History2007 (talk) 18:15, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Hmm... The term "gibbet" simply means "instrument of public execution"... An article on a guillotine (a particular type of gibbet) might have two paragraphs discussing blades in particular. Similarly, I believe constituent paraphernalia such as nails, ropes, and platforms can easily be understood as discussion points tightly related to "the gibbet".--AuthorityTam (talk) 18:26, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with AuthorityTam and still think that Form of the gibbet of Jesus would be a better title. It would include questions of the hypothetical suppedaneum and the sedile mentioned by Irenaeus as an actual, not merely hypothetical, part of a crucifixion cross (as its fifth dimension), and by extension even nails and ropes, if this last question were thought worth mentioning. And I do not exclude giving the article specific focus by renaming it Jehovah's Witnesses' doctrine on the Christian cross, as suggested earlier by Black`Cab. Esoglou (talk) 18:38, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I would support Jehovah's Witnesses' doctrine on the Christian cross given that it would end the confusion. History2007 (talk) 21:04, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I think Jesus' execution method sounds a bit too much like they way that he preferred to execute people, much as a gangster's preferred execution method might be by a revolver to the head. So Method of Jesus' execution would be better for that reason. StAnselm (talk) 21:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes. That was funny. The only bright spot in this sordid debate. Well done. I think your initial suggestion of Method of Jesus' execution is much better. History2007 (talk) 22:24, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Again, does the article wish to invite supposition that the method was something other than being nailed to a crux?
I believe the article title should include the term "gibbet", and the existence of other "Hypothesis" articles on Template:Death of Jesus tends toward something like
Christian gibbet hypothesis or Jesus' gibbet hypothesis.
I sincerely doubt readers will infer that Jesus had a hypothesis about a gibbet.
Alternately, the title Jehovah's Witnesses and the cross seems just barely acceptable.--AuthorityTam (talk) 22:46, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

If you accept Jehovah's Witnesses and the cross which is similar to what Esoglou suggested, and everyone else (myself included) accepts that or something similar to that, can we cut to the chase and do a move and be done with this before we are all nailed to the wall out of boredom? History2007 (talk) 22:54, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

If that proposal is accepted, presumably the artice will need rewriting along the line I suggested at Talk:Dispute about Jesus' execution method#Rewrite, re-angle proposal. Clearly the "dispute" angle will be removed and the article will then focus on what the JW belief is and why they believe it. How is it suggested the contrary views are presented? It appears they could well overwhelm the JW material, thus raising problems of WP:UNDUE. BlackCab (talk) 00:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you and AuthorityTam agree on a 50/50 real estate split. Each part gets the same amount of screen space and has its own section. That way you guys may actually be able to live outside Wikipedia too. All that debate is not good for anyone. If you agree to a 50/50 split, it may just work. History2007 (talk) 00:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

As a procedural note, a 50/50 split would not comply with either proposed option for the article contest. If it goes the "method of execution" route the mainstream position should get more weight. If it goes the "Jehovah's Witnesses' beliefs" route the JW position should be the primary focus with an appropriate amount of text to point out that they are in the minority with their views. Neither would focus on the disagreement itself

The other option would be to keep the current focus (i.e. on the "dispute") but soften the wording, such as "Disagreement about..." --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:08, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer, History2007. I'm still not certain I care enough about the article to share real estate with that dude. The problem ThaddeusB poses is, as I recall, pretty much the issue I raised here. (Unfortunately this is the edit where I called a certain editor's comment "mischievous", which is unfortunate. I don't really wish to revisit that dispute and I hope no one does. Please ignore the first three sentences of that edit.) Discussing a new name for the article is putting the cart before the horse. What is the purpose of the article? It can't be ignored that the JW doctrine is very much a minority view, so there are many voices speaking to the contrary. They could be boiled down a sentence or so each, but editors have previously expressed dismay that detailed material on the possible form of the gibbet could be deleted. I have no strong feelings either way: focus on the JWs or mention in them in passing. BlackCab (talk) 02:00, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Hold on please. Is everyone 100% certain that the idea of a "stake," without a crossbar, was never made? The article cites Bullinger and Vine. If Bullinger and Vine did suggest this, then it isn't a JW issue. (This observation has nothing to do with the fact that I am getting a little tired of seeing ex-JWs baiting current JWs on Wikipedia Talk pages and it spilling out all over the place) In ictu oculi (talk) 02:29, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, what's your question? The article is quite clear that the JWs assert the gibbet was just one timber and cite both Vine and Bullinger who said the same thing. The article could very well leave the JWs out and go straight to the range of views by the original authors. As possibly the ex-JW to whom you refer, I don't see that I have baited anyone here. My discussion has always been about improving an article that is currently a goddamned mess. BlackCab (talk) 02:53, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

BlackCab - I didn't specifically mean you, I'm not that focussed on who is saying what to whom, but now you mention it, and I can't remember the page, I do recollect what I would consider baiting of your former church only a week ago.

As to my observation. My observation is that Talk here seems to be overweight to considering this as a JW topic. Specifically the suggestion to rename Jehovah's Witnesses' doctrine on the Christian cross is overweight. Personally I would AfD this article and just improve archeological refs on Crucifixion#Cross_shape. I vaguely remember reading a paper 20 years ago on 1st century crucifixion which would suggest Bullinger and Vine were right, but irrespective, what the Crucifixion#Cross_shape would need are reliable recent archeological sources. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:08, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

You are aware the article just went through AfD discussion? BlackCab (talk) 03:13, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Re my supposed "baiting" of my former church. I certainly speak my mind about it on my user page, but I think you're mistaken about me baiting it on any article talk page. Just as newly converted JWs are often zealous about their religion, recent defectors can be equally passionate while the wounds are still raw. I admit that in the past I've probably said more than I should have done, but in the past year or so I have been more restrained, despite attempts by others to fan the flames. But thanks for the reminder. BlackCab (talk) 03:31, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I think I will leave you guys to figure this out and only check back in a few days to see what happened. History2007 (talk) 12:01, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd earlier said that renaming this article with "Jehovah's Witnesses" in the title seems to me "barely acceptable"; I sincerely hope consensus discussion leads away from the idea.--AuthorityTam (talk) 22:18, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Of the options given, I prefer Method of Jesus' execution, however it has obvious contextual overlap with Crucifixion of Jesus. I'm not convinced that Jesus' execution method would necessarily be broadly interpreted as Jesus' preferred method of 'whacking' people (unless someone digs up a reference claiming, And the Lord didst bust a cap in thy neighbour's ass). I don't believe there are any valid sources suggesting some method of execution other than by fastening to a stauros. Renaming to a JW-related title would certainly underscore the reason for the recent AfD, and such an article would need to be greatly reduced to properly reference the purported scope with respect to due weight. I'm not sure that gibbet is a particularly common word to necessitate its use in the title, as suggested by the confusion the term elicited at this discussion—if an article needs to explain what a gibbet is, and the term is not an essential part of the title, then a more common term should be used. Jesus' execution hypotheses could imply he wasn't executed at all (which would seem to be out of scope), or could attract fringe views that he was killed some other way.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:30, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be no consensus for a move to any other title. The opening explanation in the present text says: "This article is about the form of the gibbet used in the Crucifixion of Jesus", which strongly suggests a move to "Form of the gibbet used in the crucifixion of Jesus", more or less what I proposed above: "Form of the gibbet of Jesus". This has a clearly defined subject matter, easily distinguished from that of the much broader "Crucifixion of Jesus" article, but it has not won support. Titles that expressly mention Jehovah's Witnesses have also been rejected. The proposal "Jesus' execution hypotheses" is much too wide: it would even encompass theories about the responsibility of the Roman authorities and of the Jewish authorities, even that of deicide by the Jewish people as a whole! It seems we are stuck with what we have. Esoglou (talk) 16:05, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

FYI, earlier today I invited editors who 'previously but not recently' participated in this article's Talk to renew their participation. I found myself titling those User Talk sections "Gibbet of Jesus"; now I find myself wondering if it could be just that simple...--AuthorityTam (talk) 22:04, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Looking back at its names over the years, it seems as though editors rarely bothered with consensus before moving to a new article name:

• 20:45, 9 August 2006, Article created as 'Torture stake'
• 07:33, 6 September 2007‎ to 'Cross or stake as gibbet on which Jesus died'
• 22:58, 30 November 2009 to 'Historical disputes over the shape of the Crucifix'
• 15:05, 1 December 2009 to 'Dispute about the shape of the gibbet of Jesus'
• 08:50, 21 April 2010‎ to 'Dispute of Jesus' execution method'
• 10:31, 21 April 2010‎ to 'Dispute about Jesus' execution method'

So perhaps we should just revert to the name that had the longest duration so far: 'Cross or stake as gibbet on which Jesus died'.
Per WP:TITLECHANGES, "If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed." Regarding the concerns editors feel for this thread's previous proposals, are the concerns about 'Cross or stake as gibbet on which Jesus died' more or less serious? If the concerns about the former name are not more serious, than I propose reverting to that previous stable name.

While an ESL speaker in Malaysia or somewhere might be unfamiliar with "gibbet", the term seems unlikely to trouble a typical American, Australian, British, or Canadian reader. The term "gibbet" sidesteps terms like "cross" and allows the article to avoid over-focus on Jehovah's Witnesses (who are not alone in their interest of this topic).--AuthorityTam (talk) 17:19, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I support AuthorityTam's proposal. Esoglou (talk) 20:00, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I was not referring to English as a second language in general, or Malaysia in particular. It would seem a fairly simple and informal matter for other editors to indicate their familiarity with the term gibbet prior to discussion of this specific topic at Wikipedia, and whether the term is considered common in their locale. History2007's comment above also suggested that the term may not be broadly understood. The word gibbet is not in common usage in Australia.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:00, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with AuthorityTam's assessment. The term "gibbet" troubles this American reader. While I am familiar with the term, I have rarely encountered it in anything resembling "regular" conversation. If it were to come up somehow, I would hesitate to use it, and I would think many people unfamiliar with British history would ask me to define the term.Boneyard90 (talk) 09:24, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Boneyard90, it is far from a common term. I think its use on any TV show contest would confuse the participants. It would, however, make for a funny segment on a show such as Leno, where contestants would be asked to guess what it is. Someone should email Leno to try that sketch.... History2007 (talk) 14:45, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment:I could support a move to Method of Jesus' execution, which would contain titular leeway for discussion of various possible methods and related controversies, but I think I must strenuously object to any title with "gibbet" in it. I know the article on "gibbet" states that it is any instrument of public execution, but it also relates, or at least, by virtue of content, insinuates that the most common use of the word applies to that one-man cage that was so popular in England once upon a time. The second most common use seems to be the gallows, and last, there's the Halifax gibbet, which took the heads off the condemned... once upon a time (couldn't resist). I think we all agree that Jesus wasn't hanged, or displayed in a cage, or beheaded with an overgrown cigar cutter. If we want the article to be content inclusive, Method of Jesus' execution would seem to be best. I would like to ask, do any sources state that there is a specific term for the controversy, like Good Friday Dispute or anything like that? Boneyard90 (talk) 22:58, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

There is a separate debate regarding Good Friday being a Thursday... History2007 (talk) 14:47, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: AuthorityTam's proposal, "Cross or stake as gibbet on which Jesus died", effectively excludes interpretations as a cage or a hanging gallows. Esoglou (talk) 08:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Not so effectively, I think. How many people will type "Jesus" and "gibbet" into a search field?Boneyard90 (talk) 08:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't see the relevance. Because of the presence in the phrase of the words "cross" and "stake", anyone reading "Cross or stake as gibbet on which Jesus died" will not, I believe, think of a cage or a hanging gallows. Esoglou (talk) 08:57, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

The relevance is connecting the title to the search. If someone is researching the dispute, or discourse on the method of execution, how many people would think Jesus was hanged or left in a cage (the common associations with "gibbet"), and thus type "Jesus" and "gibbet" in the search field? If I (and possibly others) were to find the article, and read Cross or stake as gibbet on which Jesus died, I might think, "How can it be a gibbet if there's no cage or gallows"? The purported inclusiveness of the term "gibbet" is anachronistic or at best dialectically restricted.Boneyard90 (talk) 09:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

In my personal English, "gibbet" is merely a somewhat archaic non-dialect term by no means restricted to cages or hanging gallows. In fact, I have never associated it with cages and, although gibbets might be built in a variety of shapes, I still don't think the word means a cage, any more than it means the chains or the tar that are likewise associated with gibbeting, an action that, as the article on it says, is distinct from execution. I think "method of Jesus' execution" is too vague a title for an article that is really about the shape of what he was executed on. So we're stuck with what we have? Esoglou (talk) 10:41, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Just as a follow-up, I would say that the only reason the word gibbet remains in the collective American memory is its association with the cages that held executed pirates in the 17th & 18th centuries. I think there is or was a gibbeted pirate in the DisneyWorld attraction Pirates of the Caribbean (not sure, never been there), and may have been briefly portrayed in the movie of the same name. I don't think criminal bodies were put on display much in the US, as I think the practice was going out of style and the Golden Age of Piracy had ended by the time the US was formed as a country. See Captain Kidd, Calico Jack, and William Fly. So, in answer to your last question, I think yes, we may be stuck with what we have.Boneyard90 (talk) 13:01, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, I think a large percent of the public will have little or no idea what gibbet means. So its use in the title would be confusing to many readers. History2007 (talk) 14:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Since most Wikipedians do not regularly encounter public executions, it seems unsurprising that most do not use "gibbet" in their daily conversation. When I opined that the term 'gibbet' is 'untroubling', I meant that most readers would either understand the term from context or research its actual definition. I sincerely believe editors are underestimating the typical Wikipedia reader.--AuthorityTam (talk) 18:27, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I guess that would be true of people, but I think most Wikipedians encounter the public execution of logic on a daily basis. I have myself seen logic executed in a number of ways just this week, and none was pleasant... History2007 (talk) 20:02, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

It is more likley that anyone searching for this topic would use torture stake as a search term, rather than gibbet. Four editors have suggested that gibbet is archaic or obscure.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:31, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I would call it archaic and obscure. History2007 (talk) 02:34, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Merge it in to a section on JW beliefs, as there is no "dispute" outside of that religion. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 05:13, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Naming process

Editors should be reminded that the guideline WP:TITLECHANGES plainly states, "changing one controversial title to another is strongly discouraged. If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed. If it has never been stable, or unstable for a long time, and no consensus can be reached on what the title should be, default to the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub." That guideline means that –WITHOUT OTHER CONSENSUS– the title will possibly remain "Dispute about Jesus' execution method" but will likely revert to "Cross or stake as gibbet on which Jesus died". That's just the way it is; that's incentive to work toward consensus.
I suggest that we make this a multi-thread discussion, with a separate sub-thread for each term of particular concern, such as #JW in title?, #Dispute/hypothesis/doctrine/etc, #Jesus/Christ/Christian, #Execution/crucifixion/etc, #Method/manner/etc, #Gibbet/cross/stake/instrument. I've been bold and created the sub-threads.--AuthorityTam (talk) 18:27, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

JW in title?

At one point, there was separate article "Jehovah's Witnesses view of Jesus' death". Following a brief discussion at that title's Talk, that title was redirected to this article. Editors may be interested in [other comments at that now-obsolete title's Talk.--AuthorityTam (talk) 18:35, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

While I don't believe the Witnesses are the only denomination to hold the torture stake view of Jesus' death, given the content is largely JW-centric, I think it wise to include "Jehovah's Witnesses" in the title. ...comments? ~BFizz 23:31, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

It is not necessary to put JW in the title, and it would be undue weight to slant the article as a pro-JW topic.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:27, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Dispute/hypothesis/doctrine/etc

In earlier threads, I've related the merits of the term "hypothesis": it's already used for arguably-related articles such as Swoon hypothesis, Stolen body hypothesis, and Vision hypothesis, and would provide a natural way to include this article in the existing Template:Death_of_Jesus, which already has a subheading "Hypotheses".--AuthorityTam (talk) 22:16, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not in love with the idea, but for the sake of categorization, you do have a good point. Perhaps the title Torture stake hypothesis would be appropriate? Do reliable sources use any phrases similar to this when discussing this topic? ...comments? ~BFizz 23:36, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm coming around to the idea of hypothesis. (I do not agree with hypotheses for the reason stated earlier.) Each of the other article titles given as examples presents the non-traditional view as the 'hypothesis'. If being consistent with that method, I would support B Fizz' suggestion, torture stake hypothesis.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:18, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I absolutely hate to have to agree with Jeffro, but I also support "torture stake hypothesis", used for similar WP:FRINGE (that is, crux simplex v. anything else, not the specific shape of the cross, of which there is disagreement, but not really debate, because it's not "Two Babylons" significant in Christian theology; or "very small and virtually unsupported outside of POV sources" if FRINGE is too strong of a term) views as enumerated by Tam. It's the only acceptable title I've seen thusfar; "dispute" makes it sound like there actually is one, which is even less extant than "Debate about who died on the cross" (as a billion Muslims believe it wasn't Christ). St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 05:25, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Jesus/Christ/Christian

Given that the historical name of the person in question is "Jesus", while "Christ" is a religious name attached to this person, I recommend we stick with the former, although either is probably fine. I also recommend we avoid using the unqualified term "Christian", to avoid the perennial "Jehovah's Witnesses are vs are not Christian" debate. However, the term "mainstream Christian" should be fine, as most can agree that JW views are often in the minority among -- dare I use the term -- Christian denominations. ...comments? ~BFizz 23:30, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

There are people who believe Jesus was executed but was not 'Christ'. It would therefore be more within scope to simply refer to 'Jesus' throughout rather than Christ, including any suggested title. However, I see no problem with using the term Christian.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:25, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree that "Christ" should not be used, as most non-Christians believe he was executed, but don't believe he was the Christ. I do not agree that "Christian" should be used, for neutrality and avoiding that perennial debate - "mainstream Christian" or "Nicene Christian" both seem to work equally well, as every ("mainstream") Christian is Nicene (I don't know of any Church or (mainstream) denomination that doesn't use the creed). That is, Christian sources see them as Arian, JW sources see them as the only true non-Paganized Christians, and most non-religious sources don't care to differentiate between what must seem to an outsider interminable nitpicking or even internecine struggle on minor issues (just as they do not care to differentiate between the branches of most other religions, either, with the possible exception of Sunni and Shi'a Islam). St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 05:33, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Execution/crucifixion/etc

The term "crucifixion" is commonly understood as tacitly stipulating a cross. However, the term comes from the Latin "crux" and arguably allows for a crux simplex or other form. Still, the common understanding may provide undue weight...--AuthorityTam (talk) 18:39, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

The historical event is widely known as the Crucifixion of Jesus (hence the title choice for that article), so I personally see no problem using that term. While we should guide the reader in a neutral manner, I personally find it counterproductive to try to work around "common understanding". Despite this, I don't find it necessary to use "crucifixion"; "death" or "execution" would work just as well...actually we might want to avoid "death" due to mixed beliefs about what exactly happened during the execution. ...comments? ~BFizz 23:44, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

"The Crucifixion" is undoubtedly and indisputably WP:UCN. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 05:38, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Wikipedia talk:Christianity noticeboard

Can all pro-JW anti-JW editors take a back seat for a moment please. I'm not sure what is going on, the level of JW-related article pulling and pushing seems to have gone up at much the same time as West Bank issues are spilling over all over the place. Is it the season? I would think this is a mainstream (note I say mainstream in the generic sense not "mainline") subject and needs a generic mainstream title and approach and sources. The most sensible comments I've seen, as expected, are from those Wikipedia editors who are experienced contributors on a wide range of non-JW related topics, namely St Anselm, History2007, Esoglou etc. in the AfD (which as History2007 correctly noted was a misuse of AfD) discussion:

• "Keep and rename to Method of Jesus' execution. This is hardly a fringe theory, but the article should be broader than the pole vs. cross debate - mention should be made of the theory that Jesus died on a T-shaped cross. This is actually mentioned in the article, but lumped in with "crossbeam" theories. StAnselm (talk) 01:34, 28 February 2012 (UTC) In ictu oculi (talk) 03:25, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

It was not a misuse of AfD. Clear reasons were given for why it was raised. The AfD was not supported, which is an entirely separate matter.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:39, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, to fix what is evidently a notable article:

1. I propose going to RM with StAnselm's suggestion above. Any seconder?

2. I have changed "gibbet" to "stake" in the hatnote since stauros means stake in Alexander the Great era Greek, while "gibbet" sounds like Dick Turpin.

3. I have changed lede sentence to something (a) short, and (b) NPOV. "Some of the details of the method of Jesus' execution in the crucifixion of Jesus are debated both by scholars and some churches."

4. Most importantly, I have moved JW section to last. This is the least important content in the article and chronologically modern churches should go after Irenaeus and so on.

5. I have noted this at WP:Christianity. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:44, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

These are largely good suggestions. However, the suggested title sounds more like something that would ordinarily redirect to Crucifixion of Jesus. Most people searching for this topic would probably look for "torture stake". In view of all the options that have been presented so far, B Fizz' suggestion of "Torture stake hypothesis" seems to be the best.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:50, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Jeffro. You deleted my Talk reply to this. Your opinion that "Torture stake hypothesis" is the best is a reflection of exactly the problem in my reply which you have deleted. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:42, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I removed ad hominem comments not related to this discussion, but it's not necessary to re-hash that. I said B Fizz' suggestion seemed the best suggestion so far. I didn't mean to imply that it's the best option or that further discussion isn't required.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:49, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I have already commented on this in the second of the two Talk contributions I made which you deleted. If anyone wants to know what I said and why the Talk page history is there. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:55, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

What was deleted was ad hominem, and not related to this discussion. It is not appropriate to try to direct readers back to your ad hominem. This was explained to you at User Talk (since deleted by you). You really should stop this irrelevant line of attack. Thanks.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:14, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Getting back on track, what are your thoughts on the merits of Torture stake hypothesis (a combination of suggestions offered by AuthorityTam and B Fizz, not me)? What are your thoughts about my concern that Method of Jesus' execution may be too similar in concept to Crucifixion of Jesus to denote a separate topic?--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:20, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed)

Hello Jeffro77. Interesting tag, but you should know that refactoring an article Talk page, twice, and then adding that sort of tag only advertises to all and sundry that something was there; it's equivalent to putting a neon billboard up. But as to you deleting the Talk on your own Talk page, feel free; the reason I moved your comments back to your own Talk page was to give you the freedom to do so. I'll spare other editors repeating the difference between ad hominem and ad argumentum (or in this case ad verbum). But as for "Getting back on track, what are my thoughts?" My thoughts remain as I have said, that some editors would benefit greatly from contributing to Wikipedia outside of a single-topic area of edit history. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:32, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

On reviewing WP:NPA, I noticed that it is the recommended template to use. (And reasonable editors will see that your response was a non sequitur, and hardly an appropriate response to my expression of agreement and statement about suggestions made by other editors.)

And again, instead of actually getting back on track, you try to turn discussion away from the actual topic of this Talk page. WP:NPA: "Comment on content, not on the contributor." So, I will ask again:

What are your thoughts on the merits of Torture stake hypothesis (a combination of suggestions offered by AuthorityTam and B Fizz, not me)? What are your thoughts about my concern that Method of Jesus' execution may be too similar in concept to Crucifixion of Jesus to denote a separate topic?--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:40, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

What is unclear about what I have said above? I believe this page needs a selection of views from editors with a broader view. Your view is noted. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:47, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

What is unclear? Well, I asked questions that relate to the article's subject, and you keep replying with, essentially, I don't like you, instead of answering the questions relating to article content. I don't care if you like me. It's clear you're not interested in engaging in relevant discussion. My questions are still there, and rational editors can respond to them.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:05, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Kittel

wikt:gibbet :)

I have inserted a box of the actual Kittel entry, partly as it seems to be slightly misrepresented in copy. Also inserted ref from Chapman on Plutarch's distinction between stauros (pole) and skolopos (pointed stick). This really belongs in the generic crucifixion article too. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:35, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Breakpoint for clarity

In response to In ictu oculi's comment above that:

I propose going to RM with StAnselm's suggestion above. Any seconder?

I would support that. And I agree with his comments that the issue was addressed before JW and think he has made it clear that this is a "topic beyond JW beliefs" and although JW beliefs do need a good section there, there are other issues beyond those. History2007 (talk) 09:18, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

In any case, this has now spread to my talk page with a message from Jeffro regarding restoration of talk page comments he had deleted. I have had enough of this, given that this page is of 2% interest to me. Time to say good bye. However, I would note here that (as ictu oculi's stated) Jeffro's series of edits, Afd attempts etc. are wasting huge amounts of time as they spill over to other pages and take up time from other editors. Should this continue, I would agree with In ictu oculi that something needs to be done to curb these spill overs (which are now starting to enter WP:POINT territory) to other pages from the pro/against JW issues. And Jeffro, please do try not to communicate with me again if at all possible. I wish I will not come across your edits again for I see nothing productive coming from further interaction. Good bye. History2007 (talk) 14:20, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I have indicated reasons for improving the article on two separate occasions in the last year, and other editors persist in attacking my motives. I indicated in the AfD that if the article is presented as a JW article, then it should be deleted as a POV fork. However, the result of the AfD discussion was that that need not be the case, and In ictu oculi has since made very good suggestions for improving the article, and has made good edits to that end. After, I acknowledged that in ictu oculi had made good edits, he made a personal attack. I have no interest in editors making or restoring irrelevant ad hominem attacks, or whether other editors 'like' me. So, again, I will remind History2007 and In ictu oculi to stick to content.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:23, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Dear Jeffro, please listen: again, please see wikt:ad hominem. On Wikipedia the edit makes the man. Your editing on this article alone, even without having met the same editing on other articles, is disruptive since the tail (JW views/anti-JW views) is wagging the dog (a mainstream notable topic where archeologists and lexicologists should be cited). As it is you are making clean up on this article difficult. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:29, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

You seem to imagine that because I edit articles about JWs, that I am unable to edit other articles. I accept the result of the AfD that this article does not need to have a JW focus (in fact, I've stated all along that the problem with the article was its JW focus), and I explicitly stated this in my response immediately above. This does not mean that I am no longer 'allowed' to participate at this article. So please cease your incorrect characterisation that I am trying to maintain any JW focus on this article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:40, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

In the interests of allowing History2007 to continue improving this article without having to "come across [my] edits", I will remove it from my Watch List. This is as a favour to History2007 only, and my stepping away from this article is entirely voluntary. I will be checking this Talk page from time to time to ensure that I am not being further made the subject of discussion. Thanks.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:48, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 2

Dispute about Jesus' execution method → Method of Jesus' execution – - as proposed earlier and seconded by two other editors following years of random renaming. Attempt to find a NPOV, calm title that doesn't act as a magnet. (NOTE - all this is is removing "dispute" from the current title) In ictu oculi (talk) 03:04, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• I issue a very weak support. It is better than the travesty that it's titled now (implying that debate exists), but is still poor, inconsistent, and too close to plain-ol' "Crucifixion". I strongly support a move to torture stake hypothesis pursuant to NPOV and consistency with similar fringe or very small minority views as listed above, such as swoon hypothesis, Christ-myth hypothesis (oh, that's actually "Christ myth theory", even though it's not a theory any more than young-earth creation science is, but about a fringy as it gets), etc.: this is actually so non-notable that a WP:UCN can not be established. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 05:46, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
• I would support this move: Method of Jesus' execution is better than Dispute about Jesus' execution method. I am not interested in disputes but in methods. Also, Method of Jesus' execution sounds neutral and not offensive to anyone. The name torture stake hypothesis is not neutral at all and gives only a small part of what could be said on the research on Method of Jesus' execution (patibulum, T-cross, ...) —Mendelo (talk) 15:42, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. I believe the proposed title is more ambiguous than the existing name. Torture stake hypothesis is superior to either.--AuthorityTam (talk) 16:00, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Google Books - Method of Jesus' execution at least gets 7 GBhits which shows it is possible and NPOV. Can anyone show a single GBhit for "Torture stake hypothesis"? The term "torture stake" itself is language unique to JW usage and not found in WP:RS except duplicating/describing JW sources. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:52, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, but none of those are relevant to the JW doctrine of this article (I read two at random - maybe the others are?) St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 00:23, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

John. No, exactly my point, Method of Jesus' execution hits aren't about a JW doctrine, and neither is this article. None of the credible WP:RS in the article advancing a crux simplex is a JW source. So why have the tail wag the dog in the title? In ictu oculi (talk) 01:19, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me, but is the article actually about the execution itself? or is it about the instrument(s) of the execution?
Furthermore, the guideline 'WP:NAMINGCRITERIA' never once mentions hits on GoogleBooks, but rather mentions five criteria:
1) Recognizability ("recognizable to someone familiar with...the topic"); 2) Naturalness ("that editors naturally use to link from...what the subject is actually called in English"); 3) Precision; 4) Conciseness; 5) Consistency. With all due respect, the proposed "Method of Jesus' execution" seems plainly inferior to "Torture stake hypothesis" on every single criterion. Finally, I cannot imagine 'Method of Jesus' execution' not redirecting to 'Crucifixion of Jesus'.
Are editors allowed to ignore 'WP:NAMINGCRITERIA'?--AuthorityTam (talk) 18:12, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi, AuthorityTam, with respect the point is that WP:NAMINGCRITERIA can only be applied with reference to either Google Books/Scholar or some other objective criteria. We go to GB/GS to escape from our own zones of familiarity and test them.

1) Recognizability - how is a title that doesn't have Jesus in it recognisable? On the other hand "torture stake" is completely unrecognizable. Only a JW or anti-JW would search for this term as it only exists in the NWT.

2) Naturalness - "torture stake" is completely unrecognizable. The subject is not called this in English

3) Precision - what is imprecise about Method of Jesus' execution? How many executions of Jesus are there?

4) Conciseness - all these options are 3-4 words

5) Consistency - with what? There is no torture stake article, swoon hypothesis is a hypothesis that actually exists and is noted in Google books. This subject is whether the cross had a transverse, whether nails ropes were used, etc. that isn't a "hypothesis" per WP:Consistency and there are no writers/academics who advance a "wikt:hypothesis"

Having JW terminology in the WP:Title will fail on 4 of 5 counts. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:50, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

No

1). The editor's expression "zones of familiarity" niftily paraphrases the explicit guideline at WP:NAMINGCRITERIA (namely, "recognizable to someone familiar with...the topic"). Has anyone seriously studied the subject of this article and been left wondering why the term "torture stake" is suggested?

2). The term "torture stake" is perfectly natural, so so is "Jesus's gibbet hypothesis" or even "Jesus' crucifixion hypothesis".

3. Method of Jesus execution is horribly imprecise in that it suggests that the method may have been something other than crucifixion. This article is not about the execution/crucifixion per se, but about the instruments uses or supposed.

4). Conciseness is irrelevant

5. Consistency, yes there are other hypothesis articles related to Jesus' execution with which my suggestion would be consistent.

Listen, the term suggested in this RM is unacceptable. If my suggestion is unacceptable, then the title stays or reverts to the previously stable title "Stake or cross as gibbet...". Not my rules.--AuthorityTam (talk) 22:57, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I have indeed studied the subject, and the first thing I would type is "torture stake", "torture stake theory", "Jesus' torture stake", or "Jehovah's witnesses view of crucifix". St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 09:47, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Well that's the problem John, to be honest if the first thing you would type is "Jehovah's witnesses view of crucifix" (sic, crux not crucifix) that shows that you're focussed on JWs. This article isn't about JWs. If it is then we have to delete most of the content. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:58, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support per nominator. History2007 (talk) 00:06, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
• Or to Method of Jesus's execution (spelling) Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:22, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
• I agree with some of the above who say "Method of Jesus' execution" (and by consequence the current title) is far too broad and should redirect to crucifixion if it exists. Assuming the focus of this article is going to be the JW view and commentary on their viewpoint, then using their terminology + "hypothesis" is probably the best suggestion. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:21, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Although a whole range ideal world preferences have been tabled, given the choice between what is now, and the proposal:

A. Dispute about method of Jesus' execution

B. Dispute about method of Jesus' execution

It looks like four of eight above prefer to remove "dispute about" and no one has argued for retention of "dispute about". I may be wrong, I'm tired, if I'm wrong please WP:AGF and correct this comment. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:35, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I explicitly reject a move to Method of Jesus' execution as vague and not an accurate description of the article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:17, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

• I'm liking this "Method of Jesus' execution'. Boneyard90 (talk) 23:52, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. AuthorityTam has convinced me that "Method of Jesus' execution" is far too vague. Was he executed by hanging? Decapitation? Even electrocution?! I support AuthorityTam's proposal to return to "Stake or cross as ...", which indicates unambiguously what the article is about. Esoglou (talk) 07:50, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

• I have struck my very weak support and now move to oppose, as in my haste to get WP:WEIGHT and WP:GEVAL to a fringe hypothesis by the fact that the very title claims there is a dispute (which there is not), I supported a move to something so vague and unrelated it's not a fit name for the topic, and has only tangential relation to it. "Method of Jesus' execution" should redirect to the Crucifixion of the Redeemer. This should be "Torture stake hypothesis" or "Jehovah's Witnesses view of Crucifixion", after the only modern proponents of the position. It's better to leave it at such an inherently POV title, so that it will be easier to get it to a correct title after this has run its seven days (it already has: relist it or close it, Admin). I strongly oppose the inclusion of some insinuation of actual "dispute" about this, but have opened an RfM below for "Torture stake", as I don't see this one passing even with my support. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 09:53, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

RfM 3

Dispute about Jesus' execution method → Torture stake hypothesis. Please see all above discussion. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 09:53, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Not specific enough to indicate that the hypothesis concerns what is generally called the crucifixion of Jesus. Esoglou (talk) 12:14, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't see this as a real objection, as it is a natural term to anyone who has heard of it, but what about something "Jesus' torture stake hypothesis" or "Torture stake [hypothesis] (Execution of Jesus)"? St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 07:47, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Whether it is or is not "a natural term" (i.e., one related specifically to Jesus' crucifixion) to anyone who has heard of it in this particular context, it is not such to those who meet it otherwise. And as I also said below, in the case under consideration torture was an accompaniment or aggravation of the main purpose, not the main purpose itself, which was to killEsoglou (talk) 08:40, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support - Strong's Concordance and Thayer's Lexicon both give stauros as "stake". Article is not about an active dispute. Jesus' execution method is too ambiguous and should redirect to Crucifixion of Jesus.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:40, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose (1) the term "torture stake" is unsupported by WP:RS, it is a phrase from a nonstandard translation (the NWT) that would only be recognised by those who are referencing either JW or anti-JW literature, it will only serve to pull this article overweight to the views of one church (or bashing one church) rather than scholars and archeologists. In mainstream Christian sources such as John Kitto and William Barclay this is called a Crux simplex. (2) the term "hypothesis" is usually something that is totally unsupported, but there are archeologists and historians who are not dogmatic that the cross must have had a heavy transverse. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:53, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Whilst most Bibles use cross, stake is not exclusive to the JW translation. The Complete Jewish Bible, The Scriptures (TS98/ISR), and Sacred Scriptures Bethel Edition (and possibly others) also use stake.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:17, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Which underlines that the proposed term "torture stake" is WP:POV and unsupported by WP:RS, it is a phrase from the NWT. Stern uses just "stake" the same as Thayer and Bullinger. As far as I know no source uses the proposed "torture stake" except JWs and anti-JWs. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:25, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Just stake hypothesis is an alternative, but it's not great. The term torture stake is not inherently identifiable with JWs. People already familiar with the JWs' use of the term will already be familiar with the subject of the article anyway, and therefore already aware that stauros as stake pre-dates JWs. There's no reason to conclude that writers of other translations employing stake consider it to be anything other than a device used for torture. Hypothesis correctly offsets the term as a minority view, which is consistent with the use of of hypothesis in other articles related to Jesus.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:07, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

The title "stake hypothesis" would be even more ambiguous. Is it the intergenerational stake hypothesis or some other hypothesis? On the other hand, "torture stake hypothesis" runs into another difficulty apart from its lack of specificity: in the case under consideration, torture was an accompaniment or aggravation of the main purpose, not the main purpose itself, which was to kill.

Again, why not return to "Stake or cross as ..." The word "dispute" was not included in that title. Esoglou (talk) 15:02, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Esoglou, Cross or stake as gibbet on which Jesus died would be okay, and I'd support it, or something simpler such as Shape of Jesus' cross or stake or something. Anything that removes "dispute" in relation to the work of serious academics like Gunnar Samuelsson is a move in line with WP:NPOV. (The only problem with "gibbet" is that the word "gibbet" suggests a gibbet). In ictu oculi (talk) 03:40, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support Other fringe theories relating to Jesus are called hypothesis on Wikipedia, and it would be perfectly appropriate to use JW terminology in the title since this article is about their theory. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:20, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Again, where's the evidence that this is (a) a fringe theory, (b) a JW theory? Maybe we should just delete the JW last paragraph content entirely if people cannot see beyond it?In ictu oculi (talk) 02:46, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Removal of the JW content would be unhelpful. As the one religion that aggressively promotes the "torture stake" hypothesis, it is of benefit to know how they present their arguments to adherents. The fact that they misuse two sources is central to any understanding of the merit of their doctrine. Though not central to the subject, the JWs are important. BlackCab (talk) 03:13, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

BlackCab - Why are JWs important? Firstly the article lists Anglicans, Plymouth Brethren, academics (who I assume are probably agnostics), so why are are you focussing on JWs? What meaningful academic contribution have JWs made to the academic debate? Do you think Gunnar Samuelsson is a JW? (I assume he's an agnostic or Lutheran like most Swedish academics) In ictu oculi (talk) 03:27, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not saying they are more important. And they have certainly added nothing to the academic debate: they conduct no original research themselves. But with seven million members, all of whom are required to accept the "torture stake" term, avoid reference to the cross in discussing their beliefs, and also proselytize their belief (with magazines that specifically deny that Christ's execution device had a crossbeam), they are obviously a prominent entry point to the debate. Many people would have no knowledge of the single-stake theory if not for the JWs. An absence of JW content would look like an omission. BlackCab (talk) 03:43, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, this brings me to what was going to my "Secondly." Secondly, is it WP's job to carry "how they present their arguments to adherents" WP isn't a forum for stirring up religious hatred. If you want to demonstrate that "they misuse two sources is central to any understanding of the merit of their doctrine" the place for that is a blog, or an article on JWs. This isn't an article on JWs. In any case I'm not actually proposing to delete it. It just would focus people's minds to remove the JW last paragraph for a month so the title and article can be brought up to WP quality. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:50, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I have no intention of "stirring up religious hatred". I also have no further interest in being baited by you. You asked a question and I gave an answer in good faith. Sort it out yourself. BlackCab (talk) 04:16, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm calling it as I see it. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:37, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

While I agree with your conclusion, BlackCab, the manner in which you present your reasoning is clearly biased against JW belief, which weakens the argument itself. Restating the argument in slightly more boring terms: JWs are notably outspoken about this particular theory, therefore their specific views (and corresponding counter-JW views) deserve particular attention in the article. ...comments? ~BFizz 09:04, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• • For me, the problem with this proposed title is that it has no link with Jesus: it could refer to many others. Esoglou (talk) 20:36, 18 March 2012 (UTC) I support In ictu oculi's suggestion: move to something like Shape of Jesus' cross or stake. Anybody else? Esoglou (talk) 07:12, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support - In response to In ictu oculi's concerns: Regarding the "views of one church": that one church happens to be the most notably outspoken on the issue, so I feel that extra weight given to pro- and anti-JW sources is well-deserved. However, I find Crux simplex hypothesis to be equally acceptable to Torture stake hypothesis. Regarding "hypothesis", the situation is similar to Swoon hypothesis, though there is probably stronger academic support for this hypothesis over that one. Looking over the definitions at wiktionary, "theory" might be the more appropriate word for these things. So in the end I support any title of the form: ("Torture stake" OR "Crux simplex") + ("hypothesis" OR "theory"). In response to Esoglou's concern: the same could be said of Swoon hypothesis. Jesus, historically, is quite a Big Deal™ -- it makes sense to give a general name to articles dealing with Jesus, and if there are other articles that could logically have the same name, then we'll worry about disambiguating them. Glancing at WP:NAMINGCRITERIA, I believe that "torture stake hypothesis" satisfies the conditions of recognizably, naturalness, conciseness, and consistency, while sacrificing only a small amount of precision. ...comments? ~BFizz 08:53, 19 March 2012 (UTC)