Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!cs.utexas.edu!bcm!dimacs.rutgers.edu!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: grossg@patriot.rtp.dg.com (Gene Gross) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Torture Stake Message-ID: Date: 5 Apr 91 08:32:30 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: Data General Corporation, RTP, NC. Lines: 27 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article cattanac@cs.uiuc.edu (Scott Cattanach) writes: >mangoe@cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate) writes: > >>The season and a tract brought up a question: > >>Why the JW insistence on "torture stake" instead of "cross"? > >Dunno, but a Jewish-Christian (for those of you who consider this >an oxymoron, sorry, I just needed a term to describe who did the translation) >NT translation I have uses "execution stake" instead of "cross" and claims >to have taken out anti-Jewish bias in the translation. Haven't a clue >what is anti-Jewish about "cross" since it was a Roman execution style. This may have a lot to do with the fact that one of the forms of the crosses used involved a stake stuck in the ground more or less permanently. The top of the stake was sharpened to a point (rather like a pencil with a blunt point). The crossbar carried by the victim had a corresponding cup hollowed out in the center. At the time of crucifixion, after the victim was nailed to the crossbar, the victim and crossbar were pulled up to the top of the stake and dropped into place on the point of the stake. This method was the one most often used because it was easy to set up and take down. En Theos, Gene