Reliable history in the Bible

The link does say people carried their own crosses in a procession. The Greek of John 19:17 says; stauros, a stake or a pole. If Jesus carried a stake which was placed on top anothe at the place of execution, I think it still counts as 'carrying his cross'. The early christian artists were probably more at fault than John.

Hi Brian, I just saw this reply myself. Sometimes I think you imagine me to have some secret knowledge that is not readily available I don't have any proof, but what I think is that the original word 'stauros' came to be synonomous with 'cross' and was used to mean cross. But what part of the croos does it include? The entire cross, or just the stake that would be used to hang the victim from?When we say 'cross' we emphasize a shape, or two objects crossed to form the shape. In the Bible the words seem to emphasize the wood or the tree or the beam used to form the cross. Maybe what we should find is when the cross was first referred to for its shape, which I assume was taken from the Latin.JW's seem convinced that the cross had an earlier/truer form, that of being just a simple stake that the victim was bound to, or any available tree perhaps. This is taken from a literal interp. of the Greek words 'stauros' and 'xylon', both meaning a pole, tree, timber, or beam, but not describing any shape or position. I would take the JW 'research' with a grain of salt, but it is not impossible that people could have been crucified on one stake, at least in a pinch.So, I have no problem seeing the word 'stauros' as being the stake or pole that made up the cross, and also becoming the word used for the cross itself, in whatever form it took.As to why John did not mention Simon carrying the cross with Jesus, that I have no clue. The Stations of the Cross in church have always included 'Simon Helps Jesus to Carry His Cross', so I guess the church tried to incorporate both versions.

True of course jar, but it is at least possible to question whether the author of John was accurate to the best of our current knowledge, in his depiction of a crucifixion. I only say that I see no evidence he was not accurate on the methods, and that other methods may have been used from time to time that history hasn't recorded.