cross

Click here to view graphically

The Greek that is translated as “cross” in English is often referred to a description of the shape. In Chinese, for instance, it is translated as 十字架 shízìjià — “10-character-frame” because the character for “10” has the shape of a cross) or in Ancient Greek manuscripts with the staurogram (⳨) a ligature of the Greek letters tau (Τ) and rho (Ρ) that was used to abbreviate stauros (σταυρός), the Greek word for cross, and may visually have represented Jesus on the cross.

A staurogram spelling of the word σταυρον (as Ϲ⳨ΟΝ) in Luke 14:27 (Papyrus Bodmer XIV, 2nd century). Source: Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

 

Elsewhere it refers to the function, e.g. a newly coined term, like one made up of two Sanskrit words meaning “killing-pole” (Marathi NT revision of 1964), “wood to-stretch-out-with” (Toraja-Sa’dan), or “nailing pole” (Zarma). A combination of the two seems to be used in Balinese, which employs a word for the crossbeams in a house, derived from a verb that can refer both to a beam that stretches from side to side under a roof, and to a person stretched out for torture (source for this and above: Reling / Swellengrebel). Similarly, in Lamba it is translated “with umutaliko — ‘a pole with a cross-piece, on which maize was normally tied’ from the verb ‘talika’ which, strangely enough, is used of ‘holding down a man with arms and legs stretched out, someone gripping each limb.'” (Source C. M. Doke in The Bible Translator 1958, p. 57ff.)

“In Mongolian, the term that is used is togonoltchi mott, which is found in the top of a tent. The people on the steppes live in round felt-yurts and the round opening on the top of the tent serves as a window. The crosswood in that opening is called togonoltchi mott. ‘Crucified’ is translated ‘nailed on the crosswood.’ This term is very simple, but deep and interesting too. Light comes to men through the Cross. What a privilege to be able to proclaim such a message.” (Source: A. W. Marthinson in The Bible Translator 1954, p. 74ff. )

In Mairasi it is translated as iwo nasin ae: “chest measurement wood.” “This term refers to the process of making a coffin when a person dies. The man making the coffin takes a piece of bamboo and measures the body from head to heel. He then breaks the stick off at the appropriate point. For the width he measures the shoulders and then ties the two sticks together in the shape of a cross. As he works, he continually measures to make sure the coffin is the correct size. At the gravesite, the coffin is lowered. Then the gravecloth, palm leaves, and finally the chest measurement stick are laid on top of the coffin before the dirt is piled on. This term is full of meaning, because it is in the shape of a cross, and each person will have one. The meaning is vividly associated with death.” (Source: Enggavoter, 2004)

In Lisu it is translated as ꓡꓯꓼ ꓐꓳ ꓔꓶꓸ DU — lä bo tɯ du: “a place to stretch the arms across” (source: Arrington 2020, p. 215), in Noongar as boorn-yambo: “crossed tree” (source: Warda-Kwabba Luke-Ang), and in Tibetan as rgyangs shing (རྒྱངས་​ཤིང་​།), lit. “stretch + wood” (“translators have adopted the name of this traditional Tibetan instrument of torture to denote the object on which Jesus died”) (source: gSungrab website ).

The English translation of Ruden (2021) uses “stake.” She explains (p. xlv): “The cross was the perpendicular joining of two execution stakes, and the English word euphemistically emphasized the geometry: a cross could also be an abstract cross drawn on paper. The Greeks used their word for ‘stake,’ and this carries the imagery of what was done with it, as our ‘stake’ carries images of burning and impaling. ‘Hang on the stakes’ for ‘crucify’ is my habitual usage.”

See also crucify and this devotion on YouVersion .

inclusive vs. exclusive pronoun (Col. 2:14)

Many languages distinguish between inclusive and exclusive first-person plural pronouns (“we”). (Click or tap here to see more details)

The inclusive “we” specifically includes the addressee (“you and I and possibly others”), while the exclusive “we” specifically excludes the addressee (“he/she/they and I, but not you”). This grammatical distinction is called “clusivity.” While Semitic languages such as Hebrew or most Indo-European languages such as Greek or English do not make that distinction, translators of languages with that distinction have to make a choice every time they encounter “we” or a form thereof (in English: “we,” “our,” or “us”).

For this verse, translators typically select the inclusive form (including the addressee).

Source: Velma Pickett and Florence Cowan in Notes on Translation January 1962, p. 1ff.

complete verse (Colossians 2:14)

Following are a number of back-translations of Colossians 2:14:

  • Uma: “Actually, we have all done wrong and it is fitting that we be punished and separated from God, because we have transgressed his law. But from [i.e., because of] the death of Yesus on the cross, God wiped away all our transgressions, and he released us from the law that we transgressed, with-the-result-that it no longer happens/comes-about that we are punished.” (Source: Uma Back Translation)
  • Yakan: “Before/Formerly, sentence had been pronounced (lit. judgment dropped) on us (incl.) that we (incl.) should be punished because we (incl.) did not follow/keep the law. But when Almasi died on the post, the authority of the law over us (incl.) was taken away by God, therefore there is no longer any reason for punishing us (incl.).” (Source: Yakan Back Translation)
  • Western Bukidnon Manobo: “And even though we (incl.) have not obeyed His written Law, by means of the death of Christ on the cross, He removed the Law and so now there is no longer any reason to punish us.” (Source: Western Bukidnon Manobo Back Translation)
  • Kankanaey: “What God has done for us can be compared to this: he took the list of our sins or debts to him that are-due-to our not obeying his law and he nailed it to the cross, meaning to say, he threw-away the list along with the laws that were accusing us by means of Cristo’s death on the cross.” (Source: Kankanaey Back Translation)
  • Tagbanwa: “That writing on which was written in the past all the law of God, it was like our enemy for it was exposing the big-size of our opposition to him. But now, God has removed its strength for it’s like he caused it to be included with Cristo in being nailed to the cross.” (Source: Tagbanwa Back Translation)
  • Tenango Otomi: “We had sin because we broke God’s law. But God erased our sins because Christ died on the cross.” (Source: Tenango Otomi Back Translation)

Translation commentary on Colossians 2:14

Paul compares the act of forgiveness of sins to the cancelation of a record of debts. The subject of the verbs (two participles, one before and one after the finite verb) in Good News Translation and Revised Standard Version continues to be God (from verse 13).

He canceled is the Greek verb for “wipe out, erase”; used also in Acts 3.19 (sins), Rev 3.5 (name), 7.17, 21.4 (tears); the corresponding Hebrew verb in the OT is often used also with “sin(s)” as the object (compare Psa 51.9; 109.14; Isa 43.25). In order to express the concept of canceled, it is possible in some languages to use a phrase such as “to tear up,” “to throw away,” or “to declare that it is no longer valid.”

The … record of our debts represents a Greek noun which is literally “a handwritten document”—an IOU, (that is, “I owe you”) personally signed by the debtor, acknowledging his debt. The … record of our debts may be rendered as “the paper that says how much we owe,” or “the list of all that we owe,” or “the page that tells how many are our debts.”

Unfavorable translates two separate phrases; even Revised Standard Version telescopes the two: “which stood against us” (compare King James Version “the handwriting of the ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us”). It is unnecessary to represent both in translation. In a number of instances, unfavorable can best be rendered simply as “how much we had to pay,” or “debts against us,” or as in some cases “debts against our name.”

With its binding rules is simply the dative, without a preposition, and its relation to the preceding is uncertain. Perhaps “because” (so Lohse); and commentaries give other possibilities. Paul is saying that God not only forgave man’s debts, but also did away completely with the legislation that made him a debtor. The “legislation” is the Mosaic Law, and some translations make this explicit: “the decrees of the law” (New English Bible Barclay), “the law’s demands” (Translator’s New Testament). With its binding rules may sometimes be translated as “with rules governing what we must do” or “with laws saying, You must not do that.”

Did away with it completely is literally “removed it from the midst”; the verb is used with “sins” as object in John 1.29, 1 John 3.5. The pronoun it refers here to the record of our debts, but it may seem rather strange to speak of doing away with a record by “nailing it to the cross.” The point is not that the record was destroyed in the process, but that it was made no longer valid in the sense that the death of Christ on the cross wiped out our indebtedness. Therefore, did away with it may be expressed as “made it ineffective,” or “caused it to no longer have power,” or even “destroyed its meaning.”

Nailing it to the cross: by use of this figure Paul says that the forgiveness of sins was accomplished by the crucifixion of Christ (for similar expression see 1 Peter 2.24). Moule comments that there seems to be no evidence for the alleged custom of canceling a bond by piercing it with a nail. Nor does the figure here seem to allude to the cancelation of a bond by marking it out with an X, that is, crossing it out. Nailing it to the cross may be expressed as “attaching the record to the cross with a nail” or “using a nail to put the record on the cross,” but since this expression is essentially figurative, it may be necessary, as in other instances, to mark the figurative usage by means of an expression indicating similarity or likeness, for example, “nailing it, so to speak, to the cross” or “as it were, nailing it to the cross.”

The matter of the subject(s) of the verbs in verses 13-15 should be considered. In Greek “God” is clearly the subject of the verb in verse 13 “he made you alive (with him),” and thereafter there is no name or pronoun to identify the subject of the remaining verbs. Most translations and commentaries take God as the subject of all the verbs in verses 13-15 (Peake, Abbott, Beare, Lohse; Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch Revised Standard Version Bible en français courant Jerusalem Bible New American Bible New English Bible Translator’s New Testament Moffatt New International Version Barclay Traduction œcuménique de la Bible Goodspeed; Weymouth seems to make Christ the subject of all the verbs). Lightfoot, however, feels that there must be a change of subject somewhere, since in his understanding the first participle in verse 15 can hardly have God for a subject; consequently, he makes the change with the finite verb in verse 14, “he set aside” (Revised Standard Version). Moule also makes a change of subject, but with the first participle “having canceled” (Revised Standard Version) in verse 14; Good News Translation Biblia Dios Habla Hoy Barclay make the change in verse 15, with Christ as the subject of the verbs.

The determining factor is the understanding of the first participle in verse 15, whether it refers to an action taken by God or whether it must be related to Christ.

Quoted with permission from Bratcher, Robert G. and Nida, Eugene A. A Handbook on Paul’s Letter to the Colossians. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1977. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .