Introduction

What shape was the cross on which Jesus was crucified?  The most common representation is of a cross with four arms, a Crux Imissa (i.e. a ‘cross’ in plain English).  Some argue that it was a T-shaped or 'Tau' cross and some (such as Jehovah’s Witnesses) think it was a simple vertical stake.  Hard evidence from the early church is scarce, perhaps because it was taken for granted.  Kenneth Clarke in his Civilisation has this view, though I am sceptical of it: "We have grown so used to the idea that the Crucifixion is the supreme symbol of Christianity, that it is a shock to realise how late in the history of Christian art its power was recognised. In the first art of Christianity it hardly appears; and the earliest example, on the doors of Santa Sabina in Rome [432 A.D.], is stuck away in a corner, almost out of sight.  The simple fact is that the early Church needed converts, and from this point of view the Crucifixion was not an encouraging subject.  So, early Christian art is concerned with miracles, healings, and with hopeful aspects of the faith like the Ascension and the Resurrection."  Whatever it was, it does not alter the sacrifice of Our Lord, or the fact that there were certainly miracles and healings, nor should it distract us unduly now; but it is an interesting topic and important since it is the most potent symbol of Christianity.  So let us reduce the uncertainty as follows.

An Early Piece of Evidence

The famous satirical ‘Alexamenos graffito’ found in Rome and dated around 200 A.D. seems to have a primary T-shaped cross with an offset vertical extension above it possibly supporting the sign that we know was placed, but more likely reflecting the ‘staurograms’ that begin to appear in the Catacombs in Rome and in texts of the Gospels (below).  At this time in Rome, Christianity is illegal and we understand Christians are (potentially) not wanting always to advertise their presence or meeting places; in 1 Peter 5:13 it is typically accepted that the word 'Babylon' is a code word for 'Rome'.  Presumably this graffito was made by someone mocking Christians, yet with knowledge of their belief.  Note that the cross has a 'footrest', and possibly also a seat of some kind.

Other Early Historical Sources

It could be argued that Emperor Constantine sealed the Crux Imissa in history in the fourth century after having a vision of a cross that he should take into battle, which he did with great success.  The excavation of Calvary and surroundings led by Saint Helena, a Christian from birth, sometime after 326 A.D. (after Constantine’s conversion) led to the very strong tradition that she discovered the true cross as well as many other relics, and this only reinforced the idea of a ‘cross’ rather than a T or stake form. (Link)

 

A key source of support for a Tau or T-cross is its widely-held association with Saint Anthony the Great of Egypt (251-356 A.D.), although references are lacking.  The shape also resembles an Egyptian ankh and this source states that the Chaldeans and Egyptians viewed it as a representation of Tammuz, the Sumerian god of death and resurrection; though I have no idea if these would be an influence to him.  The Tau-cross is something which Saint Francis (1181-1226 A.D) and then his followers adopt after he hears Pope Innocent III talk about the Tau symbol by quoting Ezekiel 9, which speaks of the saved being marked on the forehead (Wikipedia).  The Pope in turn refers to Tertullian who clearly refers to the Greek letter Tau being the shape of the cross (here), but it is not clear whence he is drawing this reading of Ezekiel, and Tau is a Greek letter, whereas Ezekiel was written in Hebrew, not Greek, so we need to look beyond the Greek.  The word referred to (in fact a single letter) in Hebrew is ‘ת’ or ‘taw/tav/taf’ being a more general word for ‘sign’ (link), which is linked liguistically to 'Tau' in Greek.  When written in early Hebrew - the time of Ezekiel - this word (a single letter) is represented by two sticks crossing (link) rather than something resembling a T which happened later in Hebrew.  We see that tav and Tau are linguistically connected, but the original tav has changed its appearance, with the head of the cross being lost in the later version of Hebrew writing.  The Septuagint translates the Hebrew to σημεῖον (here), which is quite far from Tau and means sign, or ‘mark by which a thing is known’ (here), not specifically a Tau shape.  This commentary on the Septuagint similarly refers to the word indicating a ‘sign’ but not a Tau, and it links this to Exodus 12:13 where a ‘tav’ is also used which is the mark on the houses that are passed over by the Angel of Death.  This is therefore the important symbol of salvation and it appears that Ezekiel was communicating that a ‘cross’ be marked on the forehead for the saved, not a 'T’.  Origen discusses exactly this point in his third homily on Ezekiel here.    He states that he has made enquiries of three Hebrews about this marking on the forehead and they explained its importance in Hebrew, noting “A third, one of those who have come to faith in Christ, said that in the old-style letters, Tau resembles the form of the cross, and that there is a prophecy here concerning the sign placed on the foreheads of Christians - which all believers make when beginning any activity at all, especially prayer or holy readings.”  Origen seems to be quoted rather differently here giving the impression that Tau is preferred, whereas the former reference gives the original Greek along with the English translation so there is little doubt.  The old-style letters surely refers to the cross form of old Hebrew, rather than a T-form which occurs in later Hebrew.  The (Roman) Catholic Encyclopedia states that the great poet Nonnus (c. 400) attests to four arms of the cross, doubtless referring to his 'Paraphrase of the Gospel of John' (discussed here) and notes that Ireneaus speaks of four arms in Against Heresies here, and also a fifth on which the victim rests; some think this is a seat, but I think his words also allow for a footrest some way off the ground, and Irenaeus is making a point about the fittingness of 5 as a holy number.

 

There seems far less support for a ‘stake’ interpretation versus these two other types that have a cross-beam, and I will not pursue this further in light of the above.

When is a tau not a tau - when it's a tav

What is amazing is that God placed the symbol of our salvation - the Cross - in Ezekiel!  Hiding in plain sight!

Ephesus

The inscription reports to be by Demeas, who has done a good work for the victorious Christos.  It contains the word ‘ΣΤΑΎΡΟ’ which is the same word as staurou.  Demeas has replaced the statue of Artemis with a cross at the entrance of Hadrian's Gate, transforming it into a Christian memorial, and a cross was skillfully carved on the arch (link and link).  What this serves to show is that in this community that was founded by people from Jerusalem at the time of Jesus and remained there continuously, the word staurou is understood to mean a Crux Imissa. 

Discussion

All four Gospels state that a sign was placed above Jesus, so there had to be something extending above His head.  John, thought by most to be present at the crucifixion and who describes the sign in the most detail, states that it was put on ‘the cross’ (in all English translations) and the common understanding of ‘cross’ is one linear phenomenon passing past another.  This word is staurou in Greek and is used 12 times in the New Testament, along with 34 further variations, every one referring to the crucifixion.  Proponents of the ‘stake’ interpretation argue that staurou simply means stake.  While that is a literal translation, it is also argued that the use of the word in this context had come to signify all methods of execution in this mode.  We know that several different modes of crucifixion were used at the time, including crosses and stakes, and are described by Josephus, Seneca, Lucian and Cicero (e.g. mentioned here).  If it were not a cross, then there has been a misunderstanding in all parts of Christendom from the earliest times, and Christians went across the known world very quickly after the crucifixion.  There were many witnesses to the crucifixion, including very many hostile to Christ, which would make it very difficult to attempt to spread something other than the truth, especially so if the news is carried quickly over a wide area as we gather from the Acts of the Apostles and other evidence.

 

Some critics of any ‘cross’ interpretation sometimes suggest that this was a way of Christians capitalising on pagan uses of a cross (a Tau-cross resembling an ‘ankh’, for example).  Would Christians in hiding - including, at first, Saint Peter himself, and followers of Saint Paul - invent or transmute this vital symbol to capitalise on local folklore?  It is often suggested that Christians have adapted pagan rituals to their own purposes (the implication being ‘cynically’), such as the celebrations of Easter and Christmas, but when I have examined this more closely it never holds up; there are perfectly good Christian motives, and if incidentally it diminishes some ideas of paganism then that is to the good.  Easter is clearly the resurrection after the Jewish (and now Christian) Paschal feast and Christmas has nothing to do with midwinter solstice or Saturn. 

Conclusion

The propagation of the news of the crucifixion was immediate and widespread and carried to different places by people actually present.  The earliest physical evidence shows a Crux Imissa.  The Greek word staurou in the Bible can literally be interpreted as stake, Tau-cross or Crux Imissa, but given the other context, it seems inescapable that a Crux Imissa would be the method used.  This could involve the cross-beam being high on the stake resembling a Tau-cross, or an additional vertical could have been added to support the Titulus, but it looks like the 'Tau' interpretation is a linguistic misunderstanding.  I conclude it is entirely fitting to think of and use the Crux Imissa (or ‘cross’ in plain English) as the most deeply-held symbol of Our Saviour’s love for us.

-