Anna

As the ultimate trump card of congregation discipline, to be applied when lesser measures have failed, is disfellowshipping cruel? It certainly could be, and increasingly is, argued that way. Undeniably it triggers pain to those who refuse to yield to it, “kicking against the goads,” as was said to Paul.  That said, suffice it to say that no group has been able maintain consistent moral principles through decades of time without it. I vividly recall circuit ministers of my faith saying: “Fifty years ago, the difference between Jehovah’s Witnesses and people in general was doctrinal. Conduct on moral matters, sexual or otherwise, was largely the same.” Today the chasm is huge. Can internal discipline not be a factor?
The book 'Secular Faith - How Culture Has Trumped Religion in American Politics' attempts to reassure its secular audience through examining the changing moral stands of churches on five key issues. The book points out that today's church members have more in common with atheists than they do with members of their own denominations from decades past. Essentially, the reassurance to those who would mold societal views is: 'Don't worry about it. They will come around. They always do. It may take a bit longer, but it is inevitable.' Jehovah's Witnesses have thwarted this model by not coming around. Can internal discipline not be a factor?
In the case of Jehovah’s Witnesses, members voluntarily sign on to a program that reinforces goals they have chosen. Sometimes it is not enough to say that you want to diet. You must also padlock the fridge. It is not an infringement of freedom to those who have willingly signed aboard. They are always free to attempt their diet some place where they do not padlock the fridge. Experience shows, however, that not padlocking the fridge results in hefty people, for not everyone has extraordinary willpower.
If people want to padlock the fridge but they can’t do it because anti-cultists forbid that course, and they get hefty, as in the United States, for example, where the level of obesity is staggering, how is that not a violation of their individual rights? It is all a difference of view over the basic nature of people and what makes them tick. It is the individualists of today who would hold that you can’t even padlock your own fridge. No. Full freedom of choice must always be in front of each one of us, they say, notwithstanding that history demonstrates we easily toss with the waves in the absence of a firm anchor.
Disfellowshipping is unpleasant and some are so shocked to find themselves put out from their community of choice that they determine once and for all to mend whatever caused them to be ousted so as to regain entrance. But they do not all do that, and with the passing of time, these latter ones accumulate. Some continue on in life with a “been there, done that” mentality. But others expend considerable energy in settling the score with the organization that ousted them. One businessman in Canada even sued at being disfellowshipped—his customer base consisted mostly of Jehovah's Witnesses and most of them took their business elsewhere. A lower court agreed with him that those running his religion had “told” parishioners not to associate with the ex-member. But the Supreme Court decided that—did they really want to rule on biblical interpretation or on who had to hang out with whom?
The most disingenuous of disfellowshipped ones later frame their ousting as though it were over mere matters of disagreement. It was not their conduct that caused the trouble, they maintain, but it was simply disagreement over something, for example, the contention that leaving a spouse for another should trigger congregation sanctions. This was true of a prosecution witness at the Russian Supreme Court trial which resulted in banning the Jehovah's Witness faith. Responding to a request from the judge to cite instances of "control," [she] “reported that an example was her expulsion from the congregations after she ‘began her close, but not officially registered, relations with a man.’”
Other times it truly is over matters of disagreement with regard to interpretation or policy, and opposers try to frame things as did the Buffalo Springfield—that with Jehovah's Witnesses, it is "step out of line, the men come and take you away." Some of them present themselves almost as though freedom fighters. They came across something, perhaps, that they thought would entitle them to drive the bus. They left when they discovered that they would not be allowed grab the wheel. In some cases, they were caught red-handed trying to hotwire the bus. The “bus,” of course, is the Witness organization itself. In the end it is a too high opinion of oneself and one’s importance that sinks one. The worship and deeds of Jehovah’s Witnesses are magnified by their organized quality, and they either appeal to the heart or they don’t. If they don’t, then one magnifies disproportionately matters of individual rights.
The spirit of the times today far elevates rights over responsibilities. With Jehovah’s Witnesses, as with many religious people, it is the opposite. The responsibilities Christians feel is toward their spiritual kin. “Slave” for one another, the verse says, and many translations soften "slave" to "serve," but the root word at Galatians 5:13 is undeniably "slave.” Even before that, however, there is a responsibility toward God. The Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses dares not meddle with the disfellowshipping policy overmuch because they know it serves to keep the congregation "clean" so as to present to God what he insists upon: "a [clean] people for his name." (Acts 15:14)
A book by evangelical author Ronald J. Sider, ‘The Scandal of the Evangelical Conscience,’ highlights on the cover the question: ‘Why are Christians Living Just Like the Rest of the World?’ The author cites verse after verse of how Christian standards are “higher” than those of the greater world, and then example after example of how they are not with those claiming Christianity today. He concludes that it is largely a matter of church discipline. “Church discipline used to be a significant, accepted part of most evangelical traditions, whether Reformed, Methodist, Baptist, or Anabaptist,” he writes. “In the second half of the twentieth century, however, it has largely disappeared.” He goes on to quote Haddon Robinson on the current church climate, a climate he calls consumerism:
“Too often now when people join a church, they do so as consumers. If they like the product, they stay. If they do not, they leave. They can no more imagine a church disciplining them than they could a store that sells goods disciplining them. It is not the place of the seller to discipline the consumer. In our churches, we have a consumer mentality.”
Christians have a mandate to follow the Christ as best they can in speech and conduct. Consumerism makes that mandate effectively impossible. Yet it is the only model that today’s anti-cultists will permit. Anything veering toward discipline they paint as an intolerable affront to human rights. We must not be naïve. Theirs is no more than an attempt to stamp out biblical Christianity, veiled as though they are the very protectors of humanity.
The notion of protecting one’s values, through disciplinary action if need be, extends beyond Christianity. Was Tevye a cult member, he of the film ‘Fiddler on a Roof?’ If so, no one has breathed a word of it until very recently. The third daughter of his Russian Jewish family was shunned for marrying outside of the faith. It is an action that would not trigger shunning in the Jehovah’s Witness community, though it would gain no praises. After all, if God is truly one’s best friend, ought one really make one’s second-best friend a person who is indifferent, perhaps even opposed, to the first? Only the atheistic anti-cultists will be obtuse to the logic of this, and that only because they would consider any god-concept an unsuitable friend.
Citing Tevye to a certain ex-Witness nearly blew up in my face. At the movie’s end, he mutters to himself as his daughter and new husband depart for another continent “and let God be with you,” as though he should have been expected to shout: “May you rot in hell.” I was told that the movie teaches forgiveness, acceptance, and unconditional love rather than a stubborn cleaving to tradition and the past.” Could he really have once been one of Jehovah’s Witnesses? The entire premise of the faith, and that of many Christian denominations, is that, assuming the “traditions” are biblical and not man-made, the old ideas are solid and the new ideas are tenuous, sometimes with deleterious after-effects. In fact, forgiveness, acceptance, and love are not mutually exclusive. One can forgive without accepting disapproved conduct. One can love without accepting such. “Tough love” was the phase of yesterday. Today it is “unconditional love.” Tomorrow who knows what it will be, for the scene of this world is changing?
It is not uncommon for children of Jehovah's Witnesses to be baptized at ages as young as ten. Witness detractors argue that this is far too early to make such a consequential decision. Many offer themselves as a case in point. Some of them were Witnesses and were baptized at an early age. They later changed their mind. Some of these eventually found themselves disfellowshipped and will push to their dying day that they escaped from a cult whose members were ordered to reject their own children. Some have gone on television with that charge where they persuade viewer without too much effort that only the most “brainwashed” of people would disown their own children and that whoever did the “brainwashing” must be punished.
It is an example of "truth" that is not "the whole truth and nothing but the truth." They are not children. In Witness literature the distinction is consistently made between those who are actual children and those who are young adults capable of following through on choices they have made through word or conduct. When disfellowshipping happens in the case of minors, it may result in a somewhat strained family life in which all components except the spiritual continue as before, usually with the added condition that the disfellowshipped one should still sit in on the family Bible study. When disfellowshipping happens in the case of the latter, such ones may be told that it is time to leave the nest. They are not outright abandoned, though there is variability in people and one should never say that it has not occurred. One father I know secured a job with his large employer for his departing son and let him know that he would be there if truly needed. Another, in a family business arrangement, divvied up resources so that his young adult son could have a decent start outside the congregation. This was misrepresented as though he had thrown him out with nothing but the clothes on his back, and the father for a time became a community pariah, but eventually matters came out that he had actually been quite generous, whereby much of the reputational damage was restored.
Some disfellowshipped teens have run away from home, in a biblical twist of a drama as old as time. Such a dramatized case was presented in a short video at Regional Conventions of Jehovah's Witnesses during 2017. A young woman had been disfellowshipped over sexual immorality, after having sailed past all lesser forms of discipline unmoved. When she later called the home she had left—for she did run away in this case, against her folks’ wishes—her mom did not answer the phone, an action that the young woman later describes as crucial to her turnaround and reinstatement; if mom had extended just a little bit of fellowship, she recalls that it would have been enough for her to continue in her "headstrong" course.
This will go down hard with non-Witnesses today. "You would make all this fuss over sex?" they will say, aghast. "Get them vaccinated for HPV and accept that they will do what they do." Yet, it is a matter of adhering to the standards of the oldest book of time. Family feuds are the stuff of legend, often started over matters far more petty, such as taking sides in the disputes of another family member. It is common today that old ones are dropped off in nursing homes, never to be visited again, for reasons no more substantial than that they became inconvenient. One would never say that it is routine for divisions in family to occur, but they are by no means unheard of.
The Witness organization has said that it does not instruct parents not to associate with their disfellowshipped children. But they have produced the video cited above of specific circumstances in which a parent ignores a phone call from one of them. What to make of this? Detractors will say that they are lying through their teeth with the first statement. I think not. I think they should be taken at their word—parents will reach their own decisions the on degree of contact they choose to maintain, since they can best assess extenuating circumstances. It becomes their decision—whether they find some or none at all. Specifically, what the Witness publications do is point out that there is no reason per se that normal counsel to avoid contact with those disfellowshipped is negated simply because there are family connections. That is not the same as “telling” families to break contact. It may seem like splitting hairs, but the difference is important.
That statement finds further support in the many Witnesses who have departed and subsequently report that, though they were never disfellowshipped, they still find themselves estranged from the family mix. Effectively, they are shunned without any announcement at all, evidence that a "cult" is not telling parents what to do, but it is their appreciation for Bible counsel that triggers that course. The specific mechanics of avoiding associations with those who have spun 180-degrees on prior spiritual convictions may be arguable, but the general principle is not. When no verbal direction is given, Witnesses defer to the general principle, so it becomes plain that it was the general principle all along, rather than the commands of eight tyrannical men at headquarters. “What harmony is there between Christ and Belial?” says Paul, referring to two polar-opposite worlds and those who would choose between them.
It is the "choice" that defines. Some family members fail to follow through on their decided course as Jehovah's Witnesses, but they do not turn against it. Family relations may cool, but do not typically discontinue. It is only by making a choice that relations tank. Is it so hard to understand, given that spiritual things are important to Jehovah's Witnesses? It is well-understood in matters of nations, where visiting an unfriendly country brings no sanction but turning traitorous against one's own does. In politics it is understood, too. When comedian Kathy Griffin holds aloft the mock severed head of the American president, does anyone think that her Republican dad (if he is) says: "That's my lass! She speaks her mind. It won't affect Thanksgiving dinner, though?” Of course it will.
The word ‘disfellowship’ has not been heard in congregation announcements for perhaps a dozen years now—not that it has been purged from Witness vocabulary, but it is not explicitly stated. From time to time, an announcement is made that such and such "is no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses." It is never made of one who has merely fallen inactive, but only of those who have departed from the faith through deed or word. Though, to my knowledge, no announcement has ever been made that such is the equivalent of disfellowshipping, people mostly treat it that way. Some of whom that announcement is made are shocked into regret and turning around. Others say "You got that right" as they turn the page and go on to another chapter of life. If it is said of someone who rejects the tenets of a religion that they are therefore no longer a part of it, what are they going to say—that they are? Few would challenge the statement.
Few who would argue that youngsters have not the same maturity at age ten that they will have at twice that age. Ought they not be allowed to commit to the course they have come to believe is right, on the basis that they may later change their minds? It is not a good solution for Witnesses, though it be a great one for the anti-cultists, as it permits the latter more time to sway them. Children always will do better when permitted to identify with their choices. John Holt, an education pioneer, maintained that a prime cause of juvenile delinquency is that children are shut out of the adult world—an unanticipated effect of child labor laws enacted to protect them. For children, the solution will not be to forbid them to act upon what they have come to believe. The solution will be to cut them slack when they, through inexperience, stumble along the way. Most likely, that is being done today, for Jehovah's Witnesses, like everyone else, dearly love their children and want them to succeed.
As it turns out, I know a youngster who was disfellowshipped for a period of several months and was subsequently reinstated. He was a minor and he lived at the family home throughout the time. Months before he was disfellowshipped he had been reproved. Since I had a rapport with him, I afterwards approached to say that, while it was none of my business and I was not curious, still, if he ever wanted to discuss things, I would be available. Maybe, I allowed, he had come across some anti-Witness literature and had been intrigued. Maybe he had wanted to go to college and his parents had poured cold water on the idea. “Look, if you’ve gone gay on us—it doesn’t matter,” I said. “The point is that I have been around forever, I have seen everything, and I am not wound up too tight.” He was silent for a moment and then started telling me about this girl in another congregation. “Oh, girls are nothing but trouble!” I told him in an anticlimactic spirit. His woes were boiler-plate. Maybe he will marry the girl someday.
I had known him most of his life. As a young boy, he surfaces in my first book ‘Tom Irregardless and Me’ as Willie, the lad who protested my introducing him at each door, so I responded that he could introduce me instead. That is how it had gone all morning, save for one or two awkward situations that I had handled. The householder would look at me in expectation and I would say “Sorry, I’m too bashful. It’s his turn.” As long as he had been comfortable, it had remained his turn. Hard on the householders? Probably not. Probably it was better for them to focus on the lad—I can become wearing over time.
He also surfaces as Dietrich in the second book, ‘No Fake News but Plenty of Hogwash,’ the first one to say kind things about ‘Tom Irregardless and Me’ after reading but a single chapter. I only know two Dietrichs and the younger is named after the older, a trustworthy man whom I almost gave a heart attack when I showed up to give the first talk at the District Convention, relieving him as chairman, with only seconds to spare—there he was with songbook in hand looking anxiously through the audience. I had been in the Chairman’s Office awaiting my escort, assuming that the current year’s procedure would be the same as the prior one’s. It wasn’t. Today it would be. Everyone ‘did what was right in his own eyes’ back them. Even in small matters, there is a value in organization.
I followed the course with Willie and Dietrich that all Witnesses know and respect—I didn’t speak to him at all during his disfellowshipped time, save for only an instance or two that I could not resist. On a frigid day he dropped family members off at the door, parked, and strode toward the Kingdom Hall without a coat. Breaking all decorum, I said: “Look, I know there’s no contact and all, but did they even have to take your coat?” He liked that one. In time he was reinstated, and I later told him that there was a silver lining to be found in his experience—he would forever be an example of how discipline produces its intended effect in the Christian community.
Always there will those of the opposite persuasion: persons disfellowshipped who aren’t too happy about it. Find a few of them, work up the narrative to make it as heart wrenching as possible, and it is hard to see how it cannot be a media grand slam every time. Hide the purpose of it and present it as petty vengeance—it is a view that will sell today. Paint those doing it as deprived of humanity—it flies. Paint as dictatorial the organization holding the course—that interpretation positively soars with some. This is the age of the individual, not the group that they have individually chosen. The view that carries the day with regard to any organization is—it may as well be the year text—"power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” If there are people in charge, they must be corrupt. To an irreligious crowd, whatever the offenses for which ones were disfellowshipped is all but judgmental religious nonsense anyway. We should have moved on from it long ago. The emotional component is strong and such narratives carry the day.
To the congregation in Corinth, the apostle Paul writes: "For I am jealous over you with a godly jealousy, for I personally promised you in marriage to one husband that I might present you as a chaste virgin to the Christ." Plainly, this concern is of no consequence to departing ones who have embraced atheism. Almost necessarily they must focus on individual rights, since what triggers a sense of responsibility among their former spiritual kin has become a non-factor to them. No, it will not be easy selling the idea of shunning to these ones.
(Original post presented here: https://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2018/11/in-defence-of-shunning.html )

Don't you give the staff a chance too?

Enjoyed all the comments.  I also think Jay would get the point and the spirit behind the comments. (Love the reference to Matt 23:23,24) However, the Word of God is alive an these scriptures can reinforce some of the points.
True Christians are never on holiday from their service to God. They serve him full time in thought, word and deed
(1 Cor 10:31-33) 31 Therefore, whether you are eating or drinking or doing anything else, do all things for God’s glory. 32 Keep from becoming causes for stumbling to Jews as well as Greeks and to the congregation of God, 33 just as I am trying to please all people in all things, not seeking my own advantage, but that of the many, so that they may be saved.
True Christians serve God with their power of reason - they use their minds and conscience
(Romans 12:1) Therefore, I appeal to you by the compassions of God, brothers, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, a sacred service with your power of reason.
True Christians are interested in doing good work and helping others at all times (whether they can report the activity or not)
(Colossians 3:22) You slaves, be obedient in everything to those who are your human masters, not only when they are watching, just to please men, but with sincerity of heart, with fear of Jehovah.
Do what you have resolved in your own heart for God and your neighbour. Enjoy your service and be happy. God will not forget your good work and the love you showed for his name (written down or not written).
Agape
 
 
 
 

I've seen a word study on these two different basic terms that shows that they both went through a similar history, in both verb and noun forms, and both began with similar simple meanings and both developed and encompassed similar meanings when associated with punishments, and both took on the same prefix "ana."
Before I forget, what I really loved about the perseus.tufts.edu site was that in earlier versions, years ago, you could pick a classical Greek or Latin (or other) text, and then when you had to look up a word, the color would change from bluish to purplish (the old default HTML style for a "visited link"). This would give you kind of a visual feedback on how many words you had to look up, and also was a reminder that you had already looked up the word if you ran across the same word again later in the text. 
I think you have seen the 337-page David Chapman PDF for his book "Ancient Jewish and Christian Perceptions of Crucifixion." I'm pretty sure that someone already linked it here in this topic (might have been you?). Anyway, it had a pretty good summary of the Greek terms on page 9 through 13 (where the footnotes even include a point about the Witnesses).
It's in agreement with your post above, but I'll share a good part of it, except for the footnotes which take up half the page on average:
----------remainder of post from David Chapman PDF ---------------------
Greek Terminology
The familiar New Testament terms for the crucifixion of Jesus include the
verbs σταυρόω (46 times, though not all of Jesus), συσταυρόω (5 times),
and άνασταυρόω (in Heb 6:6), as well as the noun σταυρός. Also NT
authors speak of the event with προσπήγνυμι ("to affix"; in Acts 2:23)
or with the passive of κρεμάννυμι and έπϊ ξύλου ("to hang upon a tree"; cf.
Acts 5:30; 10:39; Gal 3:13).
Combining this terminology with that in Lucian's Prometheus*
and in other works of Greek antiquity, several more
words surface that, in context, can designate a crucifixion event: particularly
άνασκολοπίζω (verb) and σκόλοψ (noun), and including verbs such as
άνακρεμάννυμι, κατακλείω, καταπήγνυμι, πήγνυμι, προσηλόω, and
προσπατταλεύω (= προσπασσαλεύω).
Nevertheless, in Greek it is rare for the semantic range of any single term
to be confined to "crucifixion." For example, a σταυρός appears originally to
have referred to an upright pole. Thus a σταυρός can be a stake in a
σταύρωμα ("palisade"; e.g., Thucydides, Hist, vi.100) as well as a pole on
which a person is impaled or crucified. Hence it naturally follows that both
άνασταυρόω and σταυρόω can refer to the building of stockades as well as
to the setting up of poles (especially for the purpose of suspending people on
σταυροί). Elsewhere a σταυρός can be used as a place of scourging, with
the death following from some other method.
Α σκόλοψ likewise generally refers to "anything pointed" (Liddell &
Scott, s.v.), including pales, stakes, thorns, a point of a fishhook, and (in the
plural) a palisade. And similarly, the cognate verb άνασκολοπίζω need not
exclusively refer to "fix on a pole or a stake, impale.
However, the "fundamental" references to an upright pole in σταυρός and
its cognates, and to pointy objects in σκόλοψ and its cognates, does not
rightly imply such that terminology in antiquity, when applied to crucifixion,
invariably referred to a single upright beam. This is a common word study
fallacy in some populist literature. In fact, such terminology often referred
in antiquity to cross-shaped crucifixion devices. For example, Lucian, in a
brief dialogue that employs most Greek crucifixion vocabulary, refers to the
"crucifixion" of Prometheus, whose arms are pinned while stretched from one
rock to another. Such a cross-shaped crucifixion position in the Roman era
may actually have been the norm; nevertheless, the point to be sustained at
this stage is that this position was not the only one to be designated with these
Greek terms.
In addition to recognizing the broader semantic ranges of these terms, it is
helpful to note that different authors prefer certain terminology. Thus, while
Philo knows σταυρός as a "cross" (see Flacc. 72, 84; contrast σταυροί as
fortifications in Agr. 11; Spec. Leg. iv.229), he does not use the cognate verb
άνασταυρόω, preferring instead άνασκολοπίζω. Josephus, on the other
hand, employs only άνασταυρόω and σταυρόω but never άνασκολοπίζω.
Hengel contends that in the Classical period Herodotus utilized άνασταυρόω
and άνασκολοπίζω with different nuances from one another (άνασκολοπίζω
of the suspension of living men and άνασταυρόω of dead men), but that after
Herodotus these two verbs become synonymous. Such a picture may require
some more nuance, but it is certainly the case that after Herodotus some
authors use the terms interchangeably and that both verbs can designate acts
of crucifixion (even in the narrow English sense of the word).

I haven't had time to read everyone's posts since the last time, but I have copied some interesting correspondence I found on "ibiblio.org" since I was researching Lucian's work, and especially its' translation.
The topic  was  anaskolopisthenta vs.stauron:
 
Lucian of Samosata's work "The Passing of Peregrinus" on pages 38-39 
(paragraph 34, line 7), as found in The Loeb Classical Library, 
Lucian with an English Translation by AM Harmon Volume V, 1972, makes 
use of the word STAURON when he states that as Peregrinus was heading 
for his self emolation, he was enjoying the admiration of the crowds 
"...not knowing, poor wretch, that men on their way to the cross 
( STAURON σταυρὸν ) οr in the grip of the executioner have 
many more at their heels."
However earlier (pages 12-13, paragraph 11, line 11) Lucian used a 
different word when describing " the man who was crucified in 
Palestine  (  Παλαιστίνῃ   
ἀνασκολοπισθέντα ANASKOLOPISTHENTA ) because he 
introduced this new cult into the world."
 
Again in paragraph 13 Lucian talks of the "crucified sophist" 
ἀνασκολοπισμένον ἐκεῖνον σοφιστὴν 
ANASKOLOPISΜΕΝΟΝ.
 
I also note that, according to Perseus Tuft, Lucian used 
ANASKOLOPISTHESOMAI in his Prometheus on Causasus paragraph 7. But I 
am unable to check a Greek text of this at present.
 
Prometheus: Perhaps there has been some nonsense talked already; that 
remains to be seen. But as you say your case is now complete, I will 
see what I can do in the way of refutation. And first about that 
meat. Though, upon my word, I blush for Zeus when I name it: to think 
that he should be so touchy about trifles, as to send off a God of my 
quality to crucifixion, just because he found a little bit of bone in 
his share! http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/luc/wl1/wl112.htm
 
I am not sure what word Lucian used for crucifixion earlier in 
Prometheus on Causasus paragraph 1, where he states:
 
Hermes:. The very thing. Steep rocks, slightly overhanging, inaccessible 
on every side; no foothold but a mere ledge, with scarcely room for 
the tips of one's toes; altogether a sweet spot for a crucifixion. 
Now, Prometheus, come and be nailed up; there is no time to lose.
Could someone please tell me what word was used in this instance?
 
Meier JP A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the historical Jesus. Vol.1, p.
102, note 20, states that anaskolopisthenta was probably used in 
paragraph 11 of Peregrinus scornfully ("mocking tone"), and that 
Lucian had an historical basis for using ANASKOLOPISTHENTA, "since 
crucifixion probably developed from impalement."
Similar to Lucian's use of both words, I have found that STAURON was  
used for crucifixion by Polybius (Histories 1.86 Book 1, Chapter 86, 
section 6), "All the baggage fell into the rebels'º hands and they 
made Hannibal himself prisoner. 6 Taking him at once to Spendius' 
cross they tortured him cruelly there, and then, taking Spendius down 
from the cross, they crucified Hannibal alive on it.."
 
An alternative reading found using Perseus tufts has:
They at once took him up to the cross on which Spendius was hanging, 
and after the infliction of exquisite tortures, took down the 
latter's body and fastened Hannibal, still living, to his cross; and 
then slaughtered thirty Carthaginians
 
Perseus tufts has the Greek as:touton men oun parachrêma pros ton tou 
Spendiou stauron agagontes kai timôrêsamenoi pikrôs ekeinon men 
katheilon, touton d' anethesan zônta kai perikatesphaxan triakonta 
tôn Karchêdoniôn tous epiphanestatous peri to tou Spendiou sôma, 
tês tuchês hôsper epitêdes ek paratheseôs amphoterois enallax 
didousês aphormas eis huperbolên tês kat' allêlôn timôrias.
 
Later Polybius used anaskolopisthenta in this same work, namely in 
Histories (10.33.8)." Suddenly letting down the portcullis which they 
had raised somewhat higher by mechanical means, they attacked the 
intruders and capturing them crucified them before the wall." http://
penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Polybius/10*.html 27/12/07
Perseus tufts has the Greek as:
Hoi de katarraktas, hous eichon oligon exôterô dia mêchanêmatôn 
anêmmenous, aiphnidion kathêkan kai epebalonto, kai toutous 
kataschontes pro tou teichous aneskolopisan. (1.11)
Could someone tell me if there may be a grammatical pattern or reason 
as to why these two authors sometimes used ANASKOLOPISTHENTA, or 
inflections of it, and other times used STAURON? Perhaps there is 
another possible reason for the choice of words apart from those 
given by Meier.
Are there any other ancient authors who used both terms to describe 
crucifixion?
Although ANASKOLOPISTHENTA isn't used in the GNT, did any of the 
early christian writers use it, or inflections of it?
Jonathan Clerke
clerke at humanperformance.cc
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anita Clerke wrote:
> Although ANASKOLOPISTHENTA isn't used in the GNT, did any of the
> early christian writers use it, or inflections of it?
Using  ANASKOLOPIS as my search term, I find:
Herodotus Hist.
Hist 9.78.15
Philo Judaeus Phil.
Post 61.7; Som 2.213.5; Jos 96.3
Dio Chrysostomus Soph.
Orationes 17.15.5
Lucianus Soph.
Prom 2.3; Prom 7.9; Cont 14.10; Pisc 2.8; Peregr 11.11
Acta et Martyrium Apollonii
Acta et martyrium Apollonii 40.4
Cassius Dio Hist.
Historiae Romanae 62.11.4.3; S164.22
Heliodorus Scr. Erot.
Aeth 4.20.2.8
Gregorius Nyssenus Theol.
Orationes viii de beatitudinibus 44.1297.53
Eusebius Scr. Eccl. et Theol.
Eccl Hist 2.25.5.4;  8.8.1.13
Epiphanius Scr. Eccl.
Haer 1.260.14
Joannes Chrysostomus Scr. Ecc
In epistulam i ad Corinthios 61.356.52; In Petrum et Paulum 59.494.68
   Theodoretus Scr. Eccl.
Historia religiosa 31.13.12; Interpretatio in xii prophetas minores
81.1956.18
Joannes Malalas Chronogr.
Chron 473.10
Hesychius Lexicogr.
Lexicon (A-O alpha.4583.1 20a;  Lexicon (A-O alpha.4585.1 ‚20a;
Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anita Clerke wrote:
> Could someone tell me if there may be a grammatical pattern or reason
> as to why these two authors sometimes used ANASKOLOPISTHENTA, or
> inflections of it, and other times used STAURON? Perhaps there is
> another possible reason for the choice of words apart from those
> given by Meier.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As you'll see from the LSJ entry on anaskolop-izô
anaskolop-izô :--Pass., with fut. Med. -skolopioumai (in pass. sense)
Hdt.3.132, 4.43, but Pass.
A. -skolopisthêsomai Luc.Prom.7 : aor. -eskolopisthên ib.2,10: pf.
-eskolopismai Id.Peregr.13 :--fix on a pole or stake, impale, Hdt.1.128,
3.159, al.; in 9.78 it is used convertibly with anastauroô, as in
Ph.1.237,687, Luc.Peregr.11.
the reason there might be alternating usage is that the terms are
synonymous.
Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon)
e-mail jgibson000 at comcast.net
---------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't have access to this work by Lucian either and don't wish to spend the time to look for it since I have other work to accomplish.  I will nevertheless give you some thoughts regarding this.
It is customary to think of a cross in the fashion in which we see it in virtually every church as the form of a "t."  The proper designation of σταυρός [STAUROS], however, is a stake.  Although the word σταυρός [STAUROS] is not used in the passage, I refer you to MPol where it refers to Polycarp's execution
ὅτε δὲ ἡ πυρκαϊὰ ἡτοιμάσθη, ἀποθέμενος ἑαυτῷ πάντα τὰ ἱμάτια καὶ λύσας τὴν ζώνην, ἐπειρᾶτο καὶ ὑπολύειν ἑαυτόν, μὴ πρότερον τοῦτο ποιῶν διὰ τὸ ἀεὶ ἕκαστον τῶν πιστῶν σπουδάζειν ὅστις τάχιον τοῦ χρωτὸς αὐτοῦ ἅψηται. ἐν παντὶ γὰρ ἀγαθῆς ἕνεκεν πολιτείας καὶ πρὸ τῆς πολιᾶς ἐκεκόσμητο. (3) εὐθέως οὖν αὐτῷ περιετίθετο τὰ πρὸς τὴν πυρὰν ἡρμοσμένα ὄργανα. μελλόντων δὲ αὐτῶν καὶ προσηλοῦν, εἶπεν· Ἄφετέ με οὕτως. ὁ γὰρ δοὺς ὑπομεῖναι τὸ πῦρ δώσει καὶ χωρὶς τῆς ὑμετέρας ἐκ τῶν ἥλων
ἀσφαλείας ἄσκυλτον ἐπιμεῖναι τῇ πυρᾷ.
Holmes, M. W. (1999). The Apostolic Fathers : Greek texts and English translations (Updated ed.) (236). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books.
hOTE DE hH PURKAIA hHTOIMASQH, APOQEMENOS hEAUTWi PANTA TA hIMATIA KAI LUSAS THN ZWNHN, EPEIRATO KAI hUPOLUEIN hAUTON, MH PROTERON TOUTO POIWN DIA TO AEI hEKASTON TWN PISTWN SPOUDAZEIN hOSTIS TAXION TOU XRWTOS AUTOU hAYHTAI.  EN PANTI GAR AGAQHS hENEKEN POLITEIAS KAI PRO THS POLIAS EKEKOSMHTO. (3) EUQEWS OUN AUTWi PERIETIQETO TA PROS THN PURAN hHRMOSMENA ORGANA.  MELLONTWN DE AUTWN KAI PROSHLOUN, EIPEN, "AFETE ME hOUTWS.  hO GAR DOUS hUPOMEINAI TO PUR DWSEI KAI XWRIS THS hUMETERAS ED TWN hHLWN ASFALEIAS ASKULTON EPIMEINAI THi PURAi
Note the use here of PROSHLOW and hHLOS indicating that they had intended to nail him to an unstated object which was most likely a stake since it is doubtful that they intended to nail him to the firewood they place about him.  I therefore think the answer to your question regarding why one or the other word might be used is that they were virtually interchangeable.
George G F Somsel
gfsomsel@yahoo.com
 
 

Maybe this is not completely relevant to the discussion, but has anyone noticed in today's WT study (WT January2017 ) the illustration of Jesus on the stake, with the nails going through his wrists rather than through the palm of his hands? I haven't noticed this before, perhaps we have always drawn it this way and I just didn't pay enough attention. I remember reading somewhere some technicalities about the actual physical possibilities or impossibilities, and one argument was that the victim could not be nailed to a stake through the hands as the weight of the body would rip through the palms (sorry, this is so morbid) and the only way it could be through the palms is if the downward weight was distributed with the arms tied to a cross beam and the then the palms nailed (I guess for added anguish). In any case, when Thomas needed confirmation of Jesus' resurrection he said at John 20:25 .....“Unless I see in his hands the print of the nails and stick my finger into the print of the nails and stick my hand into his side, I will never believe it.” Is this a case of a broad usage for "hand"? And could it mean anything from the fingers to the wrists, including the wrists? In some languages the translation of hand can be a little confusing because it can also mean the whole arm in another language. Only the context can give a clue as to what is meant, whether it is a hand, and arm, the forearm or the whole arm including the hand...This also got me to thinking about the translation of stauros, could that also encompass  not just a vertical beam but some horizontal beams?

@JOHN BUTLER
This is funny, I had completely forgotten I had started this topic way back in 2017. Br. Rando alerted me to it. It seems like we didn't get very far in my topic. We got a lot further in yours! (Wait a minute, I just noticed it's Kurt's topic. Well you resurrected it then)
 
 

Not a joke and not the point.
The options presented are simply that...options. The MAIN issue about moral responsibility, which remains, is not offset by others who perhaps fail to meet thiers.
It does do and I can see you have a bit of a dilemna, but you seem to be second guessing what you think elders may or may not do. Also you seem to be doing the same regarding the competence of the authorities. You have understandable misgivings on the basis of what you say your experience has been, but in no way do they obviate moral responsibility in this case. Child safety is the issue here.
Given your particular difficulties, the Childline number is available to anyone in Devon UK wanting to discuss problems of this nature: 0800 1111. Ambivalence in such matters seeems to be at the crux of your complaints against Jehovah's Witnesses way of doing things anyway, so why not bite the bullet?

John, I understand why you have a dilema, but it still doesn't change anything about reporting all the information you have, even if second, third, or whatever hand, and even if you have heard the father of the victim doesn't want it reported. This is exactly the kind of situation that lands the JW's in trouble for not reporting, because they think about all those things that you are thinking about, and probably more, since they have even more details because they know of the situation first hand. So there may be very valid reasons why they have not gone to the police. But you don't know those reasons, just as you don't know the reasons for them not going to the police in all the other cases worldwide. It can be a lot more complicated that anyone on the outside realizes. But now you have had a some personal insight into how complicated one case can get without even having all the information!
But still, it doesn't change why you shouldn't go to the police, even if it means could cause a lot of trouble for not only the perpetrators family, but also the victim and the victims family. So that's why I said hopefully the police will be prudent enough to conduct their investigation in a sensitive way. They may not even do anything, but you will have done your moral obligation from your vantage point: in other words because you are worried about the child.

No. Not missing anything on that count. We have already seen from several sources that the patibulum could be tied, or not tied, or nailed or not nailed. The gospel accounts show that Jesus was not nailed until he reached the place of execution. So, whatever he carried sounds like the same process associated with the carrying of the stauros/patibulum. If he carried such a patibulum, then according to the use of the term stauros, he could be said to be carrying/bearing his own stauros/xylon. And if Jesus were nailed to this patibulum, and it was quickly hoisted onto a standing pole, then the pole itself was also the stauros/xylon, because it was used in this type of execution (stauros). If a patibulum were discarded and Jesus was nailed directly to the standing stauros/xylon, then it would still of course be a stauros/xylon execution. If he were nailed to a tree (xylon) or some other gallows (xylon) or complex contraption (xylon) made up of one or more pieces in any of several different directions, it would still be a stauros/xylon execution.
The point is that the simplest and quickest of all these optionns, to me, would be to nail him to the stauros/xylon he was carrying and hoist it onto a standing stauros/xylon. This assumption appears to be the simplest way of reading the gospel accounts, and for me, requires the least number of additional assumptions left out of the text. It fits the rushed nature of the judgment, the fact that he was given a stauros to carry, and that he was executed between or among others who were evidently undergoing stauros/xylon executions on the same day. The text doesn't say if he was nailed to the piece he was carrying. It doesn't say if a pole were already standing when he was nailed to it, or if it was on the ground and then hoisted. It doesn't say if a new hole was dug, or how deep it would need to have been. It doesn't say how the pole or contraption was propped up. It doesn't say if a ladder was required, or additional timbers or wedges to prop up the stauros . It doesn't even say if Jesus' feet were nailed, or tied, or neither.
The Bible doesn't say Jesus was raised above the other criminals. Maybe he was; maybe he wasn't.
I think you are saying that if Jesus were nailed to a crossbeam, the scriptures should have told us that he was also tied, even though we don't even know if Jesus was ever tied to a crossbeam.
The Bible does not say that Peter was crucified or executed on any kind of stauros/xylon device. So there is no optic that is even necessarily related to a stauros execution here.
(John 21:18, 19) Most truly I say to you, when you were younger, you used to clothe yourself and walk about where you wanted. But when you grow old, you will stretch out your hands and another man will clothe you and carry you where you do not wish.” 19 He said this to indicate by what sort of death he would glorify God. After he said this, he said to him: “Continue following me.” This could just as well refer to a prisoner who is led around or carried around. With stauros executions, the victim was humiliated through complete nudity and could be contorted into obscene positions. So while the expression "stretch out your hands" was often associated with a stauros execution, it can also refer to a person who becomes an "invalid" or perhaps as a prisoner being led about. (This does not mean he was not "crucified." But speculating on the type of stauros is not going to get us anywhere.)
I covered this idea already in the first part of the post. There are no known examples of anyone carrying a two-beamed cross, or even a two beamed cross being erected on the spot for an execution. Doesn't mean it could never happen. However a well-researched historical understanding of stauros (n) and stauroo (v) is all one needs to make sense of the Biblical accounts. False religion comes up with a lot of things that make no sense: Christmas trees, Easter eggs, Pyramid measurements, eternal torment, justified warfare, wearing crosses around one's neck, kissing a Pope's ring, etc.
The Greek doesn't come out at all when the text is copied from sites like https://epdf.tips/crucifixion-in-the-ancient-world-and-the-folly-of-the-message-of-the-cross-facet.html or https://religiondocbox.com/72495443-Pagan_and_Wiccan/Martin-hengel-crucifixion-in-the-ancient-world-and-the-folly-of-the-message-of-the-cross-philadelphia.html or https://religiondocbox.com/Pagan_and_Wiccan/72495443-Martin-hengel-crucifixion-in-the-ancient-world-and-the-folly-of-the-message-of-the-cross-philadelphia.html for example. The OCR is pretty good for Latin, of course, but can't handle Greek. All three of the sites I mentioned will give you the "alaxvvrj" that you quoted, when the actual word is αἰσχύνη/αἰσχύνης [from: "endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God" -KJV].
A point of interest on the words used for this type of execution is that in the next century after Jesus, two different words were finally utilized in order to distinguish between a simple stake and a "Latin cross." The word crux (crucis/crucibus) was continued as the word for a Latin cross, and the simple stake was given a different word, rather than the other way around as one would expect if the Watchtower's view were correct.
About 100 years after Revelation was likely written, Tertullian says:
And of course, closer to only 50 years after Revelation was written, we have Justin Martyr describing the shape of the stauros:
And again the same prophet Isaiah, being inspired by the prophetic Spirit, said, "I have spread out my hands to a disobedient and gainsaying people, to those who walk in a way that is not good. They now ask of me judgment, and dare to draw near to God." And again in other words, through another prophet, He says, "They pierced My hands and My feet, and for My vesture they cast lots." And indeed David, the king and prophet, who uttered these things, suffered none of them; but Jesus Christ stretched forth His hands, being crucified by the Jews speaking against Him, and denying that He was the Christ. - First Apology, Chapter XXXV "God does not permit the lamb of the passover to be sacrificed in any other place than where His name was named; knowing that the days will come, after the suffering of Christ, when even the place in Jerusalem shall be given over to your enemies, and all the offerings, in short, shall cease; and that lamb which was commanded to be wholly roasted was a symbol of the suffering of the cross which Christ would undergo. For the lamb, which is roasted, is roasted and dressed up in the form of the cross. For one spit is transfixed right through from the lower parts up to the head, and one across the back, to which are attached the legs of the lamb." - Second Apology, Chapter XL The Tertullian and Justin quotes were taken from https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/5595/jesus-and-the-cross/5646

That is why I said try to get the police it keep it confidential, because some of those people might get the mistaken impression you are doing this out of a grudge.
In any case, if you explain exactly from what source you know this information, then the polic should be wise enough to handle it as possible "hearsay" and tread carefully when conducting their investigation so as not to falsely accuse someone. That is if they are competent.

Isn't he?

Lucian also used that term (not sure if it was exactly that term because I cannot check my sources right now) in his writings about the Christians and their "crucified sophist" referring to Jesus in "the death of Peregrine":
The poor wretches have convinced themselves, first and foremost, that they are going to be immortal and live for all time, in consequence of which they despise death and even willingly give themselves into custody; most of them. Furthermore, their first lawgiver persuaded them that they are all brothers of one another after they have transgressed once for all by denying the Greek gods and by worshipping that crucified sophist himself and living under his laws. 
 

Thank you again for all your help, on this matter and on the other matter. 

Interesting to look at the term used by Lucian, "anastauroo."
*** Rbi8 p. 1577 5C “Torture Stake” ***
It was to such a stake, or pale, that the person to be punished was fastened, just as the popular Greek hero Prometheus was represented as tied to rocks. Whereas the Greek word that the dramatist Aeschylus used to describe this simply means to tie or to fasten, the Greek author Lucian (Prometheus, I) used a·na·stau·roʹo as a synonym for that word. In the Christian Greek Scriptures a·na·stau·roʹo occurs but once, in Heb 6:6. I'm not saying that @BillyTheKid46 was right (I don't think he is on this point) but note what he or one of his sources apparently claimed about that word "ana-stauroo":
If @BillyTheKid46 is right about this, it was not the original way in which anastauro was used, but I can see how it might have developed into quick way to distinguish a "crossing" cross with a simple, upright stake or pole. But this would never be claimed by the Watchtower because that would cause 'fits' with Hebrews 6:6 which uses the word and would therefore mean the following: 
(Hebrews 6:6) but who have fallen away, to revive them again to repentance, because they [ANASTAUROO - crucify on a dual-beamed, crossing cross] the Son of God afresh for themselves and expose him to public shame. Wikipedia mentions that Seneca The Younger (4BC - AD65) had observed the following during his life:
The Greek and Latin words corresponding to "crucifixion" applied to many different forms of painful execution, including being impaled on a stake, or affixed to a tree, upright pole (a crux simplex), or (most famous now) to a combination of an upright (in Latin, stipes) and a crossbeam (in Latin, patibulum). Seneca the Younger wrote: "I see crosses there, not just of one kind but made in many different ways: some have their victims with head down to the ground; some impale their private parts; others stretch out their arms on the gibbet".[14] Just another thought. Some large bones all come together in a smaller area at the wrist and there is therefore very little space at the wrist to pound a nail without the probability of breaking bones.

There was a posting on this topic, which seemed all wrong for this same reason:
 

That is why I said try to get the police it keep it confidential, because some of those people might get the mistaken impression you are doing this out of a grudge.
In any case, if you explain exactly from what source you know this information, then the polic should be wise enough to handle it as possible "hearsay" and tread carefully when conducting their investigation so as not to falsely accuse someone. That is if they are competent.

I found this for you @JOHN BUTLER
Watchtower 1987/ 8/15, page: 29
"We do know that his hands or arms were not simply bound, for Thomas later said: “Unless I see in his hands the print of the nails.” (John 20:25) That could have meant a nail through each hand, or the plural “nails” might have reference to nail prints in ‘his hands and his feet.’ (See Luke 24:39.) We cannot know precisely where the nails pierced him, though it obviously was in the area of his hands. The Scriptural account simply does not provide exact details, nor does it need to. And if scholars who have directly examined the bones found near Jerusalem in 1968 cannot even be sure how that corpse was positioned, it certainly does not prove how Jesus was positioned.
We thus recognize that depictions of Jesus’ death in our publications, such as you see on page 24, are merely reasonable artistic renderings of the scene, not statements of anatomic absolutes. Such depictions need not reflect the changing and conflicting opinions of scholars, and the drawings definitely avoid religious symbols that stem from ancient paganism.
 

I would tell the Police everything you know, and leave it in their hands, i.e. let them decide where they want to go with that information. Remember, they are supposed know the right thing to do.
Personally, I would want to remain anonymous, not with the police, but with everyone else. But I am not sure if that's possible.

I found this for you @JOHN BUTLER
Watchtower 1987/ 8/15, page: 29
"We do know that his hands or arms were not simply bound, for Thomas later said: “Unless I see in his hands the print of the nails.” (John 20:25) That could have meant a nail through each hand, or the plural “nails” might have reference to nail prints in ‘his hands and his feet.’ (See Luke 24:39.) We cannot know precisely where the nails pierced him, though it obviously was in the area of his hands. The Scriptural account simply does not provide exact details, nor does it need to. And if scholars who have directly examined the bones found near Jerusalem in 1968 cannot even be sure how that corpse was positioned, it certainly does not prove how Jesus was positioned.
We thus recognize that depictions of Jesus’ death in our publications, such as you see on page 24, are merely reasonable artistic renderings of the scene, not statements of anatomic absolutes. Such depictions need not reflect the changing and conflicting opinions of scholars, and the drawings definitely avoid religious symbols that stem from ancient paganism.
 

So, is no one going to challenge Lucian of Samosata?
Prometheus, relief from the Temple of Aphrodite at Aphrodisias

 
And/or comments about the ship's mast?

 

Well that is a good spirit to display. And bang on target. I certainly do understand your position now.

@Anna  Anna, you've just made my day. I laughed at this comment. Thank you    And i loved the smutty bit.  

While vacationing one year in Greece we got stuck in Athens for a couple of days waiting for our friends who were arriving by car from central Europe. In the meantime we decided to do some sightseeing and while doing our touristy thing we got joined by a jolly and friendly young Greek man. This was quite a long time ago, before the days of paranoia, plus my mum and I were rather laid back. Anyway, this young man, in his late teens or early twenties, decided he was going to show us around. I won’t go into detail, he did a great job, (although he smoked like a chimney), and like practically every Greek I have ever heard of was called Stavros. It was just now while reading this it suddenly dawned on me that the name Stavros must be connected to Stauros. And sure enough  HERE  it says this about the origin of the name: “Name Stavros is a rather common Greek male name and as we said comes from the Greek word “stavros” which means cross. Of course in the ancient years the word cross was referring to the item of this shape, with no political or religious meaning. The cross was used by barbarians and then by Romans who started crucifying people as a punishment for their scenes. The cross became a sacred item and symbol for Christianity when Christ was crucified on it by the Romans. The Greek Orthodox Church celebrates the name Stavros in memory of those important moments for Christianity on September 14th, the day of the Holy Cross".
I don’t know how that claim can be made “that in ancient years the word cross was referring to the item of this shape” when the etymology of that word is said to originate from  ἵστημι histēmi: meaning "straighten up", "stand" . (Besides, excuse the smuttiness, I think if I was a guy I’d rather be likened to an upright pole than some other shape).  On the other hand, an upright pole or stake doesn't necessarily have to exclude some other piece of wood attached to it, if the main part is the upright stake.  I mean when the Bible talks about stauros and if it had a cross beam, would it then have to call it "a stauros with another piece of wood horizontally attached at the top of it" ? As everyone knows, the meanings of words change through the centuries, even just decades. eg. gay meant happy not that long ago, now it means homosexual. Hypothetically it could be difficult for someone who discovered a text 2,000 years from now, to know what the author was speaking about if he wrote about a "gay couple". Were the couple happy, or were they homosexual?.....In the same token, was it a single upright stake, or a stake with a cross beam? Sorry, I think I'm just rambling....
 
 

I guess you don't agree with me, lol

Of course!
I submit for your inspection the name of the fictional arch criminal and nemesis of James Bond, 007 and the British Secret Service .... Ernst Stavro Blofeld.
From Wikipedia:
" Character
Ian Fleming includes information about Blofeld's background in his novel Thunderball. According to the novel, Blofeld was born on 28 May 1908 (which is also Fleming's birthday) in Gdingen, Imperial Germany (now Gdynia, Poland); his father Ernst George Blofeld was Polish, and his mother Maria Stavro Michelopoulos was Greek, hence the well-known Greek name Stavro ..."
 
"