Scott Wolter Apparently Solves Mystery of Hooked X, But Not the Way He Thinks He Did

12/9/2015

It seems that Scott Wolter accidentally solved the “mystery” of the Hooked X® in his latest blog post, but not for the reason he thinks. It certainly does not “rock the skeptics, debunkers, and disbelievers of the five North American rune stones with the Hooked X, to their core” as he claims. In a posting on his blog last night, Wolter claims to have discovered many new examples of Hooked X® symbolism in an old Icelandic manuscript. According to Wolter, the symbol that he associates with the Holy Bloodline of Jesus and Mary Magdalene appears as the letter aleph in an Icelandic document giving the Hebrew alphabet as well as in “secret” coded alphabets from documents dated to the second half of the eighteenth century and the first half of the nineteenth century.

What has me excited is they have also found at least two undeniable examples of the Hooked X symbol being used for the letter “a.” […] Is this conclusive evidence of a link between the sect of Jesus and his followers in the First Century, and the Templars who carved the five North American rune stones? Not yet, but this alphabet in particular is a huge piece of evidence that is consistent with this thesis.

Wolter went on to say that the documents, dating between 1700 and 1890 prove that the Hooked X® is “medieval,” despite the fact that the Middle Ages had ended more than 200 years earlier.

A hand-written Icelandic alphabet with hooks on several of the letters.

I invite readers to take a close look not at the Hooked X® but rather at the other letters that appear in the documents. (One example is above; Wolter posted more on his blog.) You will see that the same “hook” appears on several other letters as well, and almost always in the same position on the letter. This is because these documents were written in ink using quills, and the writer needed a small hook to get the ink flowing in order to draw a backward slanting or straight vertical line. The hook thus appears on the top of the letter “h” as well as “m” and “n,” where is disguised by the cursive form (which incorporates the stroke needed to start the ink). The hook is most prominent on the “x,” however, because the “x” has a prominent backward-slanted line.

We see the same “hook,” for example, in many pieces of old handwriting drawn with a quill. Christopher Columbus, to take one example, used the “hook” on both the letters “x” and “y.”

I think this presents one possible solution to the mystery of the Hooked X® and its appearance on the Kensington Rune Stone. According to Wolter, this unusual character, otherwise unattested in medieval Scandinavian runes, is a secret symbol of the Holy Bloodline. According to skeptics, it was likely derived from a secret code used by Swedish immigrants, as seen in the so-called Larsen Papers. But there is now a third possibility that eliminates the need for any secret codes at all. The Kensington Rune Stone’s inscription, and/or the Larsen Papers, may have been modeled on runes from old manuscripts that were written out by hand, in which the “hook” needed to draw the backstroke of the “x”-shaped rune was prominent enough that later people mistook it for an intentional part of the character rather than an artifact of the writing process. Perhaps somewhere along the line, in the generation or two before the stone was carved, the handwriting convention was mistaken for orthography after quills were replaced with fountain pens and the purpose of the hook was forgotten.

53 Comments

Clete

12/9/2015 11:05:01 am

There is a greater mystery he needs to solve. He needs to look high and low for his career. Perhaps he should get hold of Barry Clifford to aid him in his search. His career seems to have vanished in the waters off of Madagascar.

Read Binford

12/13/2015 11:45:01 am

A sample size of five artifacts is not representative data. Which means your not doing archaeology. It's what in actual archaeology we call, "a bit of a start" but it's not worth a lot of anyone's time. Five rocks with carvings and sketchy provenience is five rocks with sketchy provenience.. that's good for a classics study department or art history. That's not archaeology. A statistical hypothesis testing science like the archaeology I and my archaeological colleagues across the country in academia or like me, in government get paid to do every day requires verifiable context and high quality data an testable hypotheses. Even you Jason need to take a course in the philosophy of science.. or at least try logic.

This whole thing is ridiculous. Try looking at the abstracts in a well-known archeology journal like American Antiquities, or Journal of Archaeologicsl Science. Geoarcheaology. Read and read and read on how it's done by the thousands of researchers out there that get paid salaries and spend their careers doing archaeology. With MAs (real ones) or PhDs.

Christ this is a scam.

12/15/2015 06:45:51 am

The reason Wolter keeps turning tricks or keeps on selling his particular brand of snake oil is because people keep paying attention to his antics. Geeks like watching him. Geeks keep his ratings high enough for his handlers to keep airing his program. They perpetuate it. I for one have never watched more than a second or two Of his game show and nor have I read a single word of his blogs. I'm not even sure what this is about. Apparently the way a letter is inscribed in a rock or two is going to reveal to us some amazing truths about the past. I wonder if any of you have ever actually gotta out from behind your computers and iPads into the scary outdoors and actually helped on of us out on an excavation or Archaeologicsl survey. Even for the pasty-skinned geek or nerd that spends endless hours blogging or hanging on blog posts paying such rapt attention to simpletons like Wolter who have no patience or long enough attention spans to learn the tedious scientific method, there's lots of tedious indoor work taking data on artifacts from excavations, in curation facilities and archaeology labs, that could be very helpful to real hypothesis-testing archaeological research and provide a little learning for the Wolter-head in how hard one archaeological knowledge really is in not-so-romantic Reality. Why, I have a current site that we're working has over 10k flakes worth of stone tool chipping waste that needs characterization. Might be able to suggest to us an ancient trade connection between hunter gatherer groups in the region I work. Maybe show us a little bit about how campsites where used and their foraging trips where strategized or organized.

Probably not as amazing as a letter carved in a rock for a geek who perhaps secretly yearns to find the cup of Christ or a Templar burial or some inane shit like that.

X marks no spot in archaeology geeks. It's long tedious work in the scary outdoors away from computers in the messy dirt, or in a lab measuring 12,347 platform angles on 12,347 flakes because the research design requires it.

Whips a fedoras my geeks, can be worn during all this but my crew might give you tons of shit about that, your pasty skin and lack of muscle tone. You'll learn though and actually do some hard work perhaps for the first time in your lives..

Confused link

12/31/2016 04:12:15 pm

Read Binford
On your comments “Geeks”. Don’t you have any manners? Have you any proper upbringing or training? You are calling people with open minds “Geeks”! You are not letting us make our own conclusion just because we may not agree with you. Do you have any facts that are 100% undoubtedly true that are not built upon what work others have done? I don’t know a lot about what you said, but to attack another persons work in the manner in which you did, makes me wonder what accomplishments you personally have done that all archaeology craft members follow you without question. The ‘Bloodline” may or may not be true, but can you prove beyond doubt that it is or is not true? New discoveries are found every day by archaeologist that is still working their craft in the field to change history or enforce it.
I for one take offence to your ravings about geeks, nerds, etc.
Just remember that you are the minority, the gifted ones, who are supposed to lead us in a 100% true and factual direction to make history. As a follower, I am having doubts on known truths which some of you swear by.
It appears to me and my friends that you might have made some assumptions that need to be rethought.

Capt Captain

7/9/2017 09:30:59 pm

I see comments like yours Read on many different posts in many different subjects. I have found they are always from people who are paid to bash. The problem with society is that to many people like you exist. You guys are desperate to control the information and bash people who think differently than you suggest. Continue on your closed mind journey knowing that you are losing the battle.

Tom Hamar

12/14/2017 10:57:02 pm

He is doing the work ! You are not ! He is finding and reminding us of the facts that Jeses had children with a lady ! Those children are our GODs of our future ! We need to help him (us ) find them and help them make us a better race than what we are now ! We suck ! We have not done one thing to help our planet or destiny ! We have all the tools to do it and we waist them on nagging some one for trying ! Help him ! Get of your pocket book and pen and help him help us ! Think about it ! It's for us our children and there children !

jim link

2/5/2017 12:08:49 pm

Could the hooked x refer to male and female X & Y chromosomes merged?

Jeremy

7/30/2017 03:48:59 pm

My thoughts exactly, to me its clear.

james barclay

8/24/2017 08:09:15 am

If one looks at Christopher Columbus' sigil one will undoubtedly notice that there is not only a hooked X, but also a hooked Y. But what does this prove? Embellishing one's own sigil is not an uncommon artistic device. But when this device is used in disparate examples in other places, it can beg for greater attention. I then say "Happy Hunting". And if something bears a bit of fruit I say "Congratulations and keep on" and NOT start calling names, throwing mud nor making instant negative allegations. Shame on scholars who are so sensitive that they think anyone who questions their current theses that they must become immediately adamant and bellicose.

Lee Archer link

5/6/2019 02:49:28 pm

Was,the quill used on the stone also?!!!

Gopher

1/17/2020 11:57:17 pm

I was thinking the same thing! Guess on the stones they needed to get the chisels started carving to make the x! Wolter may not be the best but he brings up some interesting points, with facts, that need studied.

Only Me

12/9/2015 11:11:43 am

Oh, c'mon, Jason! You're arguing with a handwriting expert; he proved his qualifications with his AU episode on Davy Crockett.

From Wolter's blog post:

"My guess is the linguists will stubbornly remain entrenched in the foxhole of denial that to date has been rooted in non-scientific thinking and arrogance. I would love nothing more than to see them prove me wrong."

Translation: I think its true, so it must be. Anyone who says otherwise is wrong.

DaveR

12/10/2015 02:11:21 pm

He's proven wrong every time he comes up with a new theory, but since he ignores anything coming from outside his fringe group, he'll never be proven wrong in this latest theory either. At least in his own mind.

12/31/2016 04:09:03 pm

8/24/2017 07:51:21 am

Anyone may call him or herself a "handwriting expert" complete with fancy certificate and then embellish upon that as much as one wants. Its kind of like being a "polygraph expert". What I look for are links to the language, object placement, method of imprint (such as punch carving, etc.), possible purpose, other examples, possible dates of commitment, possible connection to other examples and other things such as continuity and NOT letters after my name. I also look for depth and breadth of academic research from even the parallax. Until something comes along that makes the currently held determination that the Kensington runestone et al has been solved I see no reason to bother the matter any further.

Uncle Ron

12/9/2015 12:01:50 pm

From the dread Wikipedia: "Serifs originated in the Latin alphabet with inscriptional lettering—words carved into stone in Roman antiquity. The explanation proposed by Father Edward Catich in his 1968 book The Origin of the Serif is now broadly but not universally accepted: the Roman letter outlines were first painted onto stone, and the stone carvers followed the brush marks which flared at stroke ends and corners, creating serifs. Another theory is that serifs were devised to neaten the ends of lines as they were chiseled into stone."

Neither of these explanations is satisfactory to me. Carvers certainly could finish the ends of each stroke without having to follow brushstrokes or "neaten" the line's end.

Here's an alternative hypothesis. The brief pen stroke used to start the ink flow was the original (and unintentional) serif. After a while it was added to the endpoints of all letters as a decorative flourish.

Someone skilled in internet research might want to investigate whether on not the timeline of writing methods/styles bears out this idea.

12/9/2015 07:09:59 pm

Uncle Ron, have you ever seen what a cake decorator who doesn't speak English does when writing English on a cake? They follow exactly what's written down, because they don't know what is needed and what isn't.

If you consider that the stone carvers were probably illiterate, then them following the brushstrokes makes sense. "Neatening" also makes sense to me, at least, as someone who has done some hand-carving and engraving of metal. Neatening up an end usually does slightly overshoot the edges, and it's almost unavoidable.

And then, maybe it was also just a way to indicate "I'm done with this one."

Ian Cook

12/9/2015 09:29:15 pm

Uncle Ron. This makes sense to me. Serifs do not appear to serve any real purpose other then decorative. In fact they can cause confusion.... 7 & 1, 2 and z.

Gary

12/10/2015 12:51:55 pm

Uncle Ron, do you think that they just started carving without anything to follow? Serifs and thick and thin strokes are the result of the tools used to make a letter. They are not needed by stone carvers but are an indication of the tool that originally created them. Ask any calligrapher. The form of the letter comes from the tool being used to form it. When people begin to use use different tools, the style changes.

12/10/2015 02:19:07 pm

V & Gary: Some carvers obviously had something to follow, otherwise they would not have been able to make beautifully spaced and justified inscriptions. However, many “primitive” carvings are obviously done without a layout and the letters differ in size and do not follow perfectly straight lines, and yet still have serifs. The carvers who made neat, well balanced inscriptions were obviously skilled craftsmen regardless of whether or not they were illiterate. They would have known what the letters looked like even if the layout was “painted” on the stone with slight irregularity and would have chosen the proper tool to make a precise carving. (You don’t get beautifully carved inscriptions such as on Greek or Roman buildings by sloppily painting letters on the stone and having carvers slavishly following your brushstrokes. “Neatening” the end of a line does not include making a long channel, several times the line’s width, across its end.) The painting may have been to indicate what was to be carved and where but the carvers were skilled enough to justify the inscription, space the letters, and keep everything balanced perfectly.) By the time they were adding serifs it was because that was how the letters were written.

So this brings us back to where serifs came from. Serifs appear on very poorly carved inscriptions where terminating a line or neatening its end would not serve the purpose of making the letters look better. Therefore, it appears to me that that the serif is a DELIBERATE part of the carved letter. So the question is does the carved letter imitate the WRITTEN letter (see above), and if so where did the serif originate on the written letter? The chisel probably pre-dates the pen (in all their manifestations) but where do serifs first appear? My suggestion is that if serifs are first found on WRITTEN letters then the serif MAY have started as the short pen-stroke to start ink flow and was added later to all letters as a decorative flourish and to make the letters look more uniform.

12/10/2015 06:53:47 pm

If you try to paint Roman letters with a flat brush that you keep horizontal, (as I have), in order to make the end of a letter square and avoid it tapering to the inside of the stroke, you will find a small serif will appear, in an effort to err towards the outside of the stroke rather than the outside. I believe it started there and became stylized.

12/10/2015 07:06:18 pm

*sigh* Uncle Ron, do you have any experience with sculpting? Because I do. I'm not going to claim to be the next Michelangelo, but I've been trained. I've also been trained in typography--the art of creating type. Even the best artists in the world "know" what something looks like and yet still screw up badly if they don't have a guide to work from. I can just about GUARANTEE that the nicely-justified, neat, wonderful inscriptions are the ones that were painted on, because guess what? If you mess up with paint, you can wipe it off and start over. NOT true of a carving. If you screw up when you're removing material, you can't just put it back. A truly skilled craftsman knows this and takes his or her time to prepare properly so the finished effect will be correct, and then when they go to carve, because they took the effort to prepare properly, then yes, they WILL follow precisely where the paint lines went, because that's what the lines are there FOR.

Furthermore, the marks you're talking about--the "start the ink flowing" marks--wouldn't have been necessary with the tools used by the Romans, since the Romans didn't use the kind of pen nib that you're thinking of. They didn't even use PAPER for most things; they used wax on thin sheets of metal. When they used ink and paper, they used brushes, and there is no need to "start the ink flowing" from a brush--in fact, you usually have to worry more about keeping the ink from flowing too soon.

Now, perhaps you could argue that serifs originated in neatening up letters scribed into wax--when you're talking that small a scale, yes, you can easily go several times the width of the line.

You also seem to be assuming that the width of the serif was always the same, which isn't even true TODAY. The proportion of serif-to-line-weight is different between Times New Roman and Garamond, and even the proportion of serif-to-line-weight is different within each font!

Now, a simple Google search led me to the earliest "serif" inscription datable, which is from around 330 BC.

http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/collection_online/collection_object_details/collection_image_gallery.aspx?assetId=353521001&objectId=437260&partId=1

The serifs are much, MUCH smaller than the ones you're clearly thinking of, and they're also, from the look of them, a bit DEEPER, which at least to me, fairly well indicates "I've come to the end of the line, and just to make sure neither I nor anyone else come back and screw this up, here is a slight change in the mark-making." This is PRECISELY the sort of thing that one does when one is working as part of a group of artists or artisans so that no one person screws it up for everybody.

In short, there's no way they could have started as a pen-stroke some eight hundred years before the invention of pens that needed ink started that way, but there are several reasons why they may have started with carving of inscriptions. That they were later INFLUENCED by the invention of the quill pen is not even in question; they certainly were, and that's part of the history of typography, just like the variation of line-weight within a single letter, the development of decorative type, and the invention of lower case letters.

12/10/2015 08:26:19 pm

V, thanks for that link, its beautiful.

Here's a piece I lettered in gold size, then gilded onto faux marble. Try to figure out what it says. Hint: The title is "Temple Piece".
In the first century convention, a letter within a letter is read as the next letter.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/6ys38c6vd0cusqt/3650309057_39d36456ca_o.jpg?dl=0

12/10/2015 09:31:02 pm

*sigh* V, do you have any experience sharing information without adopting a condescending tone?

liz

5/3/2017 11:17:02 am

I have asked before
To purchase your book
I think to help my son. He is stuck with his direction.
Mason, maternal. Lowes paternatal
When he knows his history
He will love it, I hope, he might get it
Blood is thick, he is looking for understanding
Wishes from mum
Liz

Joe Scales

12/9/2015 12:09:13 pm

I was over at his blog before reading this and already responded to his recent discoveries. What he fails to consider, is that he just set forth additional examples of relatively modern substitutions of his hooked X for a letter A. None of them predate the alleged carving date of 1362 for the KRS, and in fact are closer to the date of discovery for it; most suspiciously so.

skathes

12/10/2015 06:25:31 pm

I read your comments Mr. Scales, very nicely done and professional, despite SW's responses to the contrary. He cannot seem to understand the difference between academics or science and what seems to be a random version of hooked x pareidolia. In his case I suspect an underlying mental health condition...His responses were quite disturbing.

12/14/2015 11:04:11 am

I appreciate the kind words. His last move on that blog entry was to declare criticism of Winchell's work that I alluded to as "fake" from a dead author. I've twice now sent him not only the specific cite for the article in the peer reviewed Kansas Anthropologist, but a follow up article examining original source notes by its editor, who is very much alive. So far, he's not posted it.

Bob Jase

12/9/2015 02:03:57 pm

On the contrary Jason, hooks on other letters only prove that those letters belong to other groups of secret conspirators! Certainly the hooked n represents the Knights who say, "Ni".

Scott Hamilton

12/9/2015 02:55:23 pm

I suggest that fringe history writers adopt a new dating system, where everything dated between 1776 and 1 C.E. just be referred to as "old times." It would save them a lot of time, because they seem intent on treating everything from that time period as an undifferentiated slush of events.

Shane Sullivan

12/9/2015 03:09:27 pm

Not much worse than Fomenko.

David Bradbury

12/9/2015 03:23:30 pm

The Hebrew alphabet in Wolter's blog is interesting because it shows assimilation of the standard 'aleph symbol (top-left to bottom right straight stroke, met by two curved lines at upper right and lower left) to something like a double-hooked X (top-left to bottom right straight stroke, crossed by a stroke with hook at the top and curve at the bottom).

That may have been the inspiration for the code alphabets he shows, in which similar letters (i & l for example) are swopped.

tubby

12/9/2015 10:37:34 pm

The aleph looks a lot like a case of bad penmanship or not quite remembering what the character looks like really.

12/10/2015 03:31:29 am

Yes, that whole sheet of Hebrew letters has the same feel.

12/10/2015 06:57:22 pm

It's clearly the work of someone who is not a master of lettering. Probably a student assignment or an inexpert teacher.

Will

12/9/2015 05:14:24 pm

Jason's explanation of the Hooked X® using Wolter's "evidence" makes the hoax explanation for the KRS even more plausible IMO.

I am envisioning someone who is not educated in runes trying to make the hoax carving while looking at a book and adding the "fetus" of the Hooked X® just by eyeballing the runes without understanding them.

I say that because I know nothing about runes or whatever language they represent. So if someone told me to copy them onto something, I would do it by dimensions, shape, positioning, whatever without realizing there was any difference between needed parts of a character and stylistic ones.

12/9/2015 05:33:25 pm

Funnily enough, the KRS runes were probably created by somebody who did not have a book, but was remembering a runic alphabet he had been taught years before (probably in another country, before he emigrated)- and he got some runes slightly wrong.

12/9/2015 05:36:27 pm

(He remembered the hook correctly though, as seen on the Larsson runerows)

justanotherskeptic

12/9/2015 05:46:03 pm

I suppose now Wolter will copyright the entire "Hooked X(copyright)" alphabet.

12/9/2015 05:50:18 pm

I mean the registered trademarked "Hooked X®".

Ysne

12/9/2015 10:58:47 pm

I predict that sooner or later he is going to annoy someone enough that he/she will go the patent and trademark office and point out that that symbol is old enough that Mr. Wolter doesn't have the right to trademark it.

12/9/2015 11:13:30 pm

He didn't trademark the symbol itself. The trademark only applies to the phrase "Hooked X®". That's why Jason sometimes calls it the "variant A rune".

Colin Hunt

12/10/2015 10:04:53 am

Jason is right! Look at almost any medieval manuscript written with a quill and you will notice that almost every letter that ends with a downward stroke ends with a small upwards stroke, for reasons Jason explained. The tradition continues today with people who write in the italic style with a split nib metal pen which replaced the quill and is still used today, essentially unchanged, and causes users t make the same 'hooked X' stroke. Maybe Wolter would like to convince us that the millions that still use the italic script are all perpetuating the 'Holy Bloodline', or that maybe all such writers are decedents n the 'Holy Bloodline'.
Maybe Wolter should pursue the theory that Hitler was a descendant of an Indian, Chinese, or Easter European god, because he adopted their swastika symbol (which was oriented in both directions, frequently similar to the Nazi version) from his ancestors!!! An equally ridiculous theory, but not inconsistent with his 'hooked X' theory!!!!

12/10/2015 07:15:02 pm

Yup, 'cause if you don't end your lines that way, you get a blob of ink at the bottom from stopping too quickly, and in order to start a thin line, you need to go from a thick line, or you ALSO get a blob, so in making the top-right-to-bottom-left slash on an x, you need the fat little swoop to get the ink flowing first.

Pen nibs like that are also why we have typefaces that vary the line-weight within a single letter--keeping the same pressure on the pen creates thick and thin in relation to he direction of the flat bottom of the nib-point--thin in the same direction as, thick in opposition to (ie, the sides spread wider when you're pulling or pushing it "straight" rather than pulling it on the same angle). Learning to manipulate that is what makes pen-and-ink artists good or great.

Clint Knapp

12/10/2015 10:20:45 am

All well and good for Wolter's continued misunderstanding of calligraphy, but one would be remiss if one did not make careful note of the Aleph itself.

That little "hook" Wolter perceives in what his own cited images show to be a transliteration table from Hebrew into Latin letters is a feature of the Hebrew aleph itself.

The Aleph has that little "hook" because that "hook" is the Yod. The Hebrew letter I, or Y, which itself is more significant than the aleph as it relates to forming the name of God. In rabbinical literature, the Aleph is formed of an upper Yod (the "hook") to signify the hidden aspects of God, a lower Yod (the lower left arm), and a Vahv to link the two realms.

In short, it's not a serif, and it's not a swoop of the pen to get the ink flowing, it's a purposeful feature of Aleph and Scott Wolter's source document is a crude rendition of the Hebrew letter with the upper Yod arm of the Aleph made more prominent than the lower one.

One could, however, still argue that the upper Yod arm is easier to form than the lower if one is attempting to transcribe the Hebrew letter quickly or without as much care as Jewish scribes themselves take in the formation of the letters.

12/10/2015 10:22:28 am

That should read:
"a lower Yod to signify the manifestation of God in the material world"

12/10/2015 10:56:52 am

By the way, if Scott's paying attention (not that I expect him to know a damn thing about rabbinical literature) that would make the LOWER Yod of the Aleph more important as it relates to the "bloodline" hypothesis. That the super-special "hook" isn't on the lower left arm of his beloved X "rune" should give some sort of pause to the whole conspiracy.

Should. But won't.

Mike Jones

12/10/2015 01:53:33 pm

Do you really think a guy who hangs out with Frank Joseph cares about rabbinical literature or Hebrew in general?

rcaugust

12/15/2015 05:11:01 am

I genuinely love the elegance of this particular rebuttal. It has made me smile. Thanks Jason!

Steven Eighner

9/7/2016 04:52:09 pm

Ok, so how is it then that almost all the hooked X's he points to are carved in stone?

Not dismissing what you say as I've always had my doubts about the Hooked X but you tend to be hard on the guy where you miss certain obvious points as you don't use a quill to carve stone and I've never heard of anyone carving stone this way. While some of what he finds are supposedly new discoveries, other hooked X's have existed and been well documented for a very long time. My point being that a forger might have copied the hooked X from paper but why would a non forger do it and only with the letter X?

S. D. Caldwell PhD

12/9/2016 01:06:47 am

I think I've watched all of Scott Wolters shows, hoping to find something I can learn. Mostly I've found misunderstanding, bad background education and improper attribution. I think he needs some advanced studies. With all the subjects he's weak on, it will take years.

Will Betz link

1/3/2020 08:12:12 am

Has anyone looked at the Hooked X as a symbol of Christ's Crucifixion on the cross? Some scholars believe that the Crucifixion Cross was shaped as an X as opposed to what is depicted as the traditional Cross! Any thoughts?

Bill

8/20/2020 09:13:16 am

Pretty snarky which takes away from your point. Als this doesn't explain why you find it carved in stone.

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.