Edited To Prove A Point (Or A Cross In This Case)

I was reading a website concerning the Jehovah's Witnesses and the usual 'stake' or 'cross' argument broke out. Someone, who never clearly stated their religious bias, said: "all those writing comments against the JWs should read their book Reasoning From The Scriptures". So I did. Admittedly not the whole book, just the pages concerning the cross/stake argument (pages 89-93).

click image for larger view

On some of the quotes I noticed heavy use of ellipses (the 3 dots that usually indicate an intentional omission, e.g. ... ). And curiosity got the better of me and I decided to check the first quoted material against the original.

It was a quote from The Imperial Bible-Dictionary. The Reasoning From The Scriptures publication quotes it as:

"The  Greek  word  for  cross, [stau·ros'], properly signified a  stake, an upright pole, or piece of paling, on which anything might be hung, or which might be used in impaling [fencing in] a piece of ground. ... Even  amongst  the Romans the crux  (from which our cross is derived) appears to have been originally an upright pole. - Edited by P. Fairbairn (London, 1874), Vol. I, p. 376."

Whereas the original text of The Imperial Bible-Dictionary states:

"The Greek word for cross, [stau·ros'], properly signified a  stake, an upright pole, or piece of paling, on which anything might be hung, or which might be used in impaling a piece of ground. But a modification was introduced as the dominion and usages of Rome extended themselves through Greek-speaking countries. Even  amongst  the Romans the crux (from which our cross is derived) appears to have been originally an upright pole, and this always remained the more prominent part. But from the time it began to be used as an instrument of punishment, a transverse piece of wood was commonly added: not, however, always then. For it would seem that there were more kinds of death than one by the cross: this being sometimes accomplished by transfixing the criminal with a pole, which was run through his back and spine, and came out at his mouth (adactum per medium hominem, qui per os emergat, stipitem, Seneca, Ep. xiv) In another place (Consol. ad Marciam, xx), Seneca mentions three different forms: "I see," says he, "three crosses, not indeed of one sort, but fashioned in different ways: one sort suspending by the head persons bent toward the earth, others transfixing them through their secret parts, others extending their arms on a patibulum." There can be no doubt, however, that the latter sort was the more common, and that about the period of the gospel age crucifixion was usually accomplished by suspending the criminal on a cross piece of wood. But this does not of itself determine the precise form of the cross; for crosses of three different shapes were known to have been in use." (The Imperial Bible-Dictionary, 1874, page 376)

The 'real' text decides nothing. It says that there were three shapes used. But the Jehovah's Witness quote not only is edited to match the idea of a torture stake, it also omits the ending which can be very roughly paraphrased as saying: "There were three shapes used. Nothing anywhere says which one was used. The only thing I can say is pick one."

click image for larger view

The whole definition goes into a lot more detail and is worth a read. The Imperial Bible Dictionary can be viewed, and downloaded, over at Google Books. The whole book seems like a treasure trove of information.

So it is not that the Jehovah's Witnesses are wrong in their assertion of a torture stake, and for the sake of clarity it is not an incorrect assertion of the more 'traditional' cross shape. It is that, with careful editing, that will direct the Witnesses to the points they wish them to see only, instead of giving them the whole story and allowing them to decide, and think, for themselves. It is the typical misdirection employed by various people who only want you to see what they want you to see. Kind of like the magician who has all eyes on his right hand while the left hand palms the coin.