stephan huller

I agree with your tuxedo comment. I spent half my youth overdressing to get women. in retrospect however casual dress and a cute dog would probably have been more effective

Jeffrey Gibson

You mean by not making it even more sub scholarly than it already is? - which is exactly what your previous engagements with me (filled as the were with ad hominem arguments and logical fallacies) have done to the forum.

Thanks!

Jeffrey

stephan huller

With regards to overdressing for an event, here is a funny story. I got a call to do the White House back in 2000 and thought 'of course, I have to be in my Sunday best.' Got there it turned out to be an 'Old Fashion Picnic Theme.' I was more formally dressed than the President. My wife (then girlfriend) was mad because I made her overdressed too.



I always thought - better to always overdress. Not always true (though Hilary ended up talking to us as if we were somebodies; when she realized we were just 'hired help' she politely stopped talking to us).

stephan huller

not a tux per se but Canali so appropriate

Onias

No, the fictional JC was not a revolutionary. Rather he was a parody and a lampoon of the revolutionary zealots and actual historic messiah-aspirants of the time. Whenever he appears to speak of swords or violence, the statement is soon marginalized, diluted or completely reversed by the anti-zealot Jesus by saying things like "those who live by the sword will die by the sword".

A Roman audience would be amused by this pacifist anti-messiah Jesus. A zealot audience would be enraged by him.
Onias

semiopen

To paraphrase Owen Wilson's comment to Jackie Chan in Shanghai Knights -

The issue I'm discussing is also discussed by Chapman in the book you recommended as being essential.

He makes a detailed analysis of TLH and the aramaic TsLV in the introduction

Here, however, he seems to bend over backwards to be nice to old farts who want to believe that this word means hang. As I have pointed out several times, the JPS 1985 translation of the Tanakh translates TLH as impale every single time it is used in the appropriate context. Even so Chapman seems to agree that the TLH and TsLV mean impale/crucify.

Also I have noted the article by Vermes above, who has a more sensible approach to TLH.

Now, I know I am overmatched, when a guy can just put Greek bullshit in a cryptic note - like holy shit I'm talking to someone with brains - however the overwhelming evidence seems to be that TLH means impale.

I don't see you adding anything to this discussion, you just seem to be looking for trouble.

Onias

THANK YOU!
And another thanks for returning to the OP!

Here is an excerpt from an article that is helpful. Ironically it is written by an Xian, but the title "The Original Meaning of Deuteronomy 21-22-23" suggests the NT (and Paul) are not using the "original meaning".

http://reformedperspectives.org/arti...n.Deut.21.html

The Original Meaning of Deuteronomy 21:22-23

By Cole McLaughlin

M.Div. student at RTS Charlotte
And
Director, Charlotte Metro College Ministry
Campus Crusade for Christ

Introduction

What is the original meaning of Deuteronomy 21:22-23? How would a Hebrew in Moses' day have understood this declaration concerning a capital offender's corpse? Why should modern readers be concerned with understanding this short excerpt from the Israelite legal code? Not surprisingly, these are questions given little attention in the church today. When read apart from an understanding of its ancient Hebrew theological and social context, this text is at best bewildering and at worst, shockingly gruesome. So, intimidated by this law's obscurity and subject matter, we keep our distance. 1

In contrast to our relative disinterest in and unfamiliarity with Deut 21:22-23, the New Testament writers reference this passage on several occasions, most notably Paul in Gal 3:13. 2 Further, several Old Testament narratives show that, for ancient Hebrews, corpse- hanging before burial was more than mere conjecture; indeed, this practice was a physical reality in Israelite society. 3 With these considerations in mind, it is clear that this rather obscure Hebrew law deserves further examination. Accordingly, this paper will seek to illumine the ancient Hebrew understanding of Deut 21:22-23 by exploring its placement in the book of Deuteronomy, its social and theological meaning for Moses' original audience, and its application in Israel's history. After examining these aspects of its original context, we will discuss Paul's usage of this text to explain Christ's work in Gal 3:13. Finally, we will seek to identify the significance of this law for the church today.

{snip}


Original Meaning

As the surrounding context of Deut 21:22-23 reveals, capital offenders were subject to justice on both an earthly and a heavenly level—not only did their crimes warrant worldly punishment, but they also elicited divine condemnation. Accordingly, for the original Hebrew audience, Deut 21:22-23 had both social and theological implications. On a social level, the practice of hanging executed criminals for public display was a graphic deterrent of future crime. Contrastingly, the prescribed removal of the criminal's body before the next day highlighted the need to extend mercy even to the worst members of society. But more prominent than the social messages of Deut 21:22-23 are this law's theological concerns. Two key concepts addressed within this law—cursedness and the land—had major implications for the dynamics of covenant life in Israel. Below we will discuss the social and theological implications separately.

Social Implications

Deterrence.

It seems appropriate to note here that while the practice of hanging corpses is mentioned in Deut 21:22-23, it is not legislated by this passage. The law is written, in fact, on the assumption that corpse hanging already occurs in Israel. 10 So, the mention of such a practice was not mere conjecture, but rather a vivid reminder for Israelites of the horrific fate of those who showed flagrant disregard for God's law by perpetrating a capital offense. In fact, one value of this practice was to discourage the people from committing such criminal acts themselves. Textually, we need only look back one verse, to Deut 21:21, to see that deterrence was one motivation for the public nature of capital punishment in Israel. The incorrigible son was stoned that "all Israel will hear of it and be afraid." 11 Just as public execution engendered healthy reverence for God's law in the hearts of the people, so it seems would post-execution hanging cause onlookers to think twice before engaging in lawlessness. 12 Ardel Caneday says it well: "The gruesome display forcefully warned the Israelites concerning the results of breaking covenant laws that were punishable by death." 13

There is much more, but I need to shorten this, so please
Continue reading at:
http://reformedperspectives.org/arti...n.Deut.21.html

semiopen

Just going through Onias' post of the divinity students paper.

There are a lot of references. Which take time to look at.

I think the thesis of accursed is sort of ok but it's not so obvious.

The poster boy seems to be Deut 21 something

This is the story of the drunken son

The part that follows is not obviously related. It seems to be another thought entirely.

This does not seem to relate the drunken son at first glance, and even if it does, how evil can the guy have been?

Anyway, that's hardly convincing evidence for the theological blithering, since it puts two verses together that don't seem to belong that way.

I think I remarked awhile ago, it is just gross to impale someone that is already dead. Makes no sense.

Sheshbazzar

Examining the Hebrew text of Deut 21:23, the second word תָלִין 'TaLIN' ('tawleen' from the root word לון 'luwn') is interesting.
Its primary usage within Scripture is 'remain all night' but it is also the word that in other contexts is translated as to 'murmur'.
Seeming to be a subtly implied double-entendre suggestion that a corpse so exposed suspended in public view, is by its very presence 'murmuring' or complaining against society.

At least that is how this usage appears to me ....but then my opinions are often regarded as being a bit 'off the wall'. Make of it what you will




.

maryhelena

Onias, interesting that you now feel comfortable referencing a christian source - and yet in your earlier thread you made a point of pointing out that David Chapman "appears" to be an "Xian" - and even put scholar in inverted commas ......:huh:


From your christian source - link above:



my bolding

Do you really think that David Chapman, in his extensive, scholarly, study of Jewish and Christian perspectives of crucifixion - would resort to such faith based interpretations of the source material?

Onias, in that earlier thread dealing with your idea of the gospel JC reflecting a militant historical figure - and as such, the crucifixion of this rebel against Rome should not fall under the curse of Deut. 21:23 - and should rather be viewed in an honorable light - you failed to provide, after being requested to do so, Jewish sources to back up your view that such a crucifixion of a Jewish rebel, against Rome, would fall outside the curse of Deut. 21:23.

I'm open to considering exemptions from this curse - I'd just like to see you provide them...

Yes, fighting against Roman oppression was, as is fighting against all oppression, an honorable thing to do - but that fighting had, what is called today, collateral damage. Both sides would suffer - with Rome bringing down stronger measures because of the Jewish rebels. This fight between Jewish rebels and the might of Rome was a no-win situation. Heroism and Tragedy - not just for Jewish national aspirations - but for those Jewish rebels that suffered the tragedy of crucifixion at the hands of Rome.