Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Duvduv · 04-17-2012, 07:55 AM

If you have a set of FAQs concerning the criteria for determining what is "absurd" and what is not absurd, I sure would like to know.

Quote:

Originally Posted by semiopen

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Can people post their opinions without the use of vulgarities?
Semiopen sounds rather authoritarian in his statements about the views concerning the Torah. I thought non-religious people were supposed to be rather tolerant and not so absolutist (i.e. live and let live).......

I have no problem with people believing that Moses went up Sinai and received the ten commandments on the two tablets carved by God with the floating

Samekh.

Quote:

In some legends, samekh is said to have been a miracle of the Ten Commandments. Exodus 32:15 records that the tablets "were written on both their sides." The Jerusalem Talmud interprets this as meaning that the inscription went through the full thickness of the tablets. The stone in the center parts of the letters ayin and teth should have fallen out, as it was not connected to the rest of the tablet, but it miraculously remained in place.

The problem is that, in a forum of this type, believing this literally is an absurd view. Your responsibility as a contributor is to show why this is not absurd.

I think the fucking vulgarities you refer to are my normal conversational writing style and not personally aimed at anyone.

semiopen · 04-17-2012, 08:53 AM

I think my example is pretty good.

The reference mentions that there are two Talmudic schools of thought concerning the samekh. One is that the commandments were written in Assyrian characters and the other that they were written with the

Paleo-Hebrew_alphabet.

The second choice is many times better than the first but a small problem is

Quote:

The Paleo-Hebrew alphabet (Hebrew: הכתב העברי הקדום‎) (Yiddish: כתב עברי), is an abjad offshoot of the ancient Semitic alphabet, identical to the Phoenician alphabet. It dates to the 10th century BCE or earlier.

Of course, both opinions seem insane.

In addition to my Rabbi (who has a vested interest), I have a friend who thinks everything is Emet (truth). Of course I don't tell him that I think that is a serious defect. This forum is different though, I can say that and hope to justify it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

If you have a set of FAQs concerning the criteria for determining what is "absurd" and what is not absurd, I sure would like to know.

Quote:

Originally Posted by semiopen

I have no problem with people believing that Moses went up Sinai and received the ten commandments on the two tablets carved by God with the floating

Samekh.

The problem is that, in a forum of this type, believing this literally is an absurd view. Your responsibility as a contributor is to show why this is not absurd.

I think the fucking vulgarities you refer to are my normal conversational writing style and not personally aimed at anyone.

semiopen · 04-17-2012, 10:24 AM

Just to put my replies in context:

There are two questions we are debating -

Should TLH be translated as impalement, and is the Talmud an authoritative source for second temple capital punishment.

It seems clear that impalement is pretty much as reasonable an interpretation as hang; from what I've learned here it seems better.

The Talmudic interpretations of punishment methodology are certainly reasonable (these guys did know the bible) but my guess is that they have little connection with historical reality. Why would someone think that their concept in any way reflects actual practices say in 300 BCE?

Some research might make this less murky, but general principles implies that it is safest to assume that the talmud is not correct in this matter.

Bullmoose Too · 04-17-2012, 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Meatros

Why is being hanged on a tree shameful to the ancient Jews?

Wasn't crucifiction considered shameful to the Romans? (I seriously doubt the Romans actually gave a shit what the Jews thought of them or their means of execution.)

Duvduv · 04-17-2012, 12:16 PM

Please find me all other references in Tanakh or even in the Talmud where the word TALA means impalement. I have never seen that anywhere, INCLUDING in the case of the hanging of Haman in the Book of Esther.

Quote:

Originally Posted by semiopen

Just to put my replies in context:

There are two questions we are debating -

Should TLH be translated as impalement, and is the Talmud an authoritative source for second temple capital punishment.

It seems clear that impalement is pretty much as reasonable an interpretation as hang; from what I've learned here it seems better.

The Talmudic interpretations of punishment methodology are certainly reasonable (these guys did know the bible) but my guess is that they have little connection with historical reality. Why would someone think that their concept in any way reflects actual practices say in 300 BCE?

Some research might make this less murky, but general principles implies that it is safest to assume that the talmud is not correct in this matter.

andrewcriddle · 04-17-2012, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Godfrey

I know that mythicist extremism has tainted this line of thought somewhat, but what do you folks make of the similarities between Jesus being "hung on a tree" and similar myths (like Prometheus being tied to a tree)?

Do these parallels leave leave room for the possibility that some of the more outrageous stories surrounding Jesus (like the Resurrection) were drawn from existing myths?

Prometheus is usually supposed to have been fastened to a rock.

Andrew Criddle

semiopen · 04-17-2012, 03:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Please find me all other references in Tanakh or even in the Talmud where the word TALA means impalement. I have never seen that anywhere, INCLUDING in the case of the hanging of Haman in the Book of Esther.

I posted some in post 34

Quote:

I was unable to find any articles dealing with this issue, that is, explaining what made the 1985 team change this.

They made this change to

Quote:
but the chief baker he impaled -- just as Joseph had interpreted to them.
(Gen 40:22 TNK)

Quote:
And as he interpreted for us, so it came to pass: I was restored to my post, and the other was impaled." (Gen 41:13 TNK)

Quote:
And the king of Ai was impaled on a stake until the evening. At sunset, Joshua had the corpse taken down from the stake and it was left lying at the entrance to the city gate. They raised a great heap of stones over it, which is there to this day. (Jos 8:29 TNK)

Funny that Yoshke sr. apparently left it lying overnight, but the king was a goy - who cares. Maybe it's because the king may not have been guilty of a capital crime.

Quote:

After that, Joshua had them put to death and impaled on five stakes, and they remained impaled on the stakes until evening.
(Jos 10:26 TNK)

Quote:

David gave orders to the young men, who killed them; they cut off their hands and feet and hung them up by the pool in Hebron. And they took the head of Ish-bosheth and buried it in the grave of Abner at Hebron. (2Sa 4:12 TNK)

Seems like the translators thought that if you were going to cut off their hands and feet you wouldn't bother impaling them as they are apparently going to die from losing blood anyway.

It occurs to me that the draining of blood is sort of politically correct when considered with sacrificial procedures.

Quote:

One of the men saw it and told Joab, "I have just seen Absalom hanging from a terebinth." (2Sa 18:10 TNK)

Useful to look at the previous line -

Quote:

Absalom encountered some of David's followers. Absalom was riding on a mule, and as the mule passed under the tangled branches of a great terebinth, his hair got caught in the terebinth; he was held between heaven and earth as the mule under him kept going. (2Sa 18:9 TNK)

A lesson for us all.

Quote:

And David went and took the bones of Saul and of his son Jonathan from the citizens of Jabesh-gilead, who had made off with them from the public square of Beth-shan, where the Philistines had hung them up on the day the Philistines killed Saul at Gilboa. (2Sa 21:12 TNK)

beginning to see a pattern?

Quote:

The matter was investigated and found to be so, and the two were impaled on stakes. This was recorded in the book of annals at the instance of the king. (Est 2:23 TNK)

Quote:

Then his wife Zeresh and all his friends said to him, "Let a stake be put up, fifty cubits high, and in the morning ask the king to have Mordecai impaled on it. Then you can go gaily with the king to the feast." The proposal pleased Haman, and he had the stake put up. (Est 5:14 TNK)

50 cubits is a big stake, I think Zeresh was exaggerating.

Quote:

"Who is in the court?" the king asked. For Haman had just entered the outer court of the royal palace, to speak to the king about having Mordecai impaled on the stake he had prepared for him. (Est 6:4 TNK)

Quote:

Then Harbonah, one of the eunuchs in attendance on the king, said, "What is more, a stake is standing at Haman's house, fifty cubits high, which Haman made for Mordecai -- the man whose words saved the king." "Impale him on it!" the king ordered. (Est 7:9 TNK)

Maybe Haman took Zeresh literally. I suspect this isn't historically accurate.

Quote:

So they impaled Haman on the stake which he had put up for Mordecai, and the king's fury abated. (Est 7:10 TNK)

Quote:

Then King Ahasuerus said to Queen Esther and Mordecai the Jew, "I have given Haman's property to Esther, and he has been impaled on the stake for scheming against the Jews. (Est 8:7 TNK)

Quote:

"If it please Your Majesty," Esther replied, "let the Jews in Shushan be permitted to act tomorrow also as they did today; and let Haman's ten sons be impaled on the stake." (Est 9:13 TNK)

Quote:

The king ordered that this should be done, and the decree was proclaimed in Shushan. Haman's ten sons were impaled:
(Est 9:14 TNK)

Quote:

But when Esther came before the king, he commanded: "With the promulgation of this decree, let the evil plot, which he devised against the Jews, recoil on his own head!" So they impaled him and his sons on the stake. (Est 9:25 TNK)

Quote:

He it is who stretched out Zaphon over chaos, Who suspended [TLH] earth over emptiness.
(Job 26:7 TNK)

Quote:

There on the poplars we hung up our lyres, (Psa 137:2 TNK)

Quote:

Your neck is like the Tower of David, Built to hold weapons, Hung with a thousand shields -- All the quivers of warriors. (Sol 4:4 TNK)

My kind of girl.

Quote:

on which all the substance of his father's household shall be hung: the sprouts and the leaves -- all the small vessels, from bowls to all sorts of jars. (Isa 22:24 TNK)

Quote:

Princes have been hanged by them; No respect has been shown to elders. (Lam 5:12 TNK)

Interesting to compare this with JPS1917

Quote:

Princes are hanged up by their hand; the faces of elders are not honoured.
(Lam 5:12 JPS)

This line is simple enough for me to read, I think 1985 is better.

Obviously they are going with impale unless the context suggests that that is wrong. They wouldn't have done this unless they had consensus of the team on the matter - probably among 5 - 10 scholars - moreover they were all probably modern Orthodox.

It is interesting that a discussion about this is so hard to find. I'm inclined to ask an academic about it.

Godfrey · 04-17-2012, 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by Godfrey

I know that mythicist extremism has tainted this line of thought somewhat, but what do you folks make of the similarities between Jesus being "hung on a tree" and similar myths (like Prometheus being tied to a tree)?

Do these parallels leave leave room for the possibility that some of the more outrageous stories surrounding Jesus (like the Resurrection) were drawn from existing myths?

Prometheus is usually supposed to have been fastened to a rock.

Andrew Criddle

Yeah, of course, but I've heard it both ways.

Also, there are other similarities--like the resurrection and ascension, which seemed to be pretty common in old myths. But of course these things would probably naturally occur to myth makers, especially in the context of demigods like Jesus.

I'd be interested in knowing where the history ends and the myth begins. But I doubt we ever will.

aa5874 · 04-17-2012, 04:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Godfrey

Yeah, of course, but I've heard it both ways.

Also, there are other similarities--like the resurrection and ascension, which seemed to be pretty common in old myths. But of course these things would probably naturally occur to myth makers, especially in the context of demigods like Jesus.

I'd be interested in knowing where the history ends and the myth begins. But I doubt we ever will.

You make it seems like no other character in the history of mankind has ever been considered a Myth.

Myths are a dime a dozen.

Jesus of the NT will stop being a Myth as soon as there is a credible historical account.

That is how Myths come to an end.

There are people right now SEARCHING for an historical Jesus because the one in the NT is a Myth.

As soon as they find the historical Jesus we will see the End of Myth Jesus.

Ehrman found Nothing but Embarrassing stories, forgeries, fiction and unreliable sources but had the "heart" to claim his Jesus is truly man.

Godfrey · 04-17-2012, 04:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Godfrey

Yeah, of course, but I've heard it both ways.

Also, there are other similarities--like the resurrection and ascension, which seemed to be pretty common in old myths. But of course these things would probably naturally occur to myth makers, especially in the context of demigods like Jesus.

I'd be interested in knowing where the history ends and the myth begins. But I doubt we ever will.

You make it seems like no other character in the history of mankind has ever been considered a Myth.

Myths are a dime a dozen.

Jesus of the NT will stop being a Myth as soon as there is a credible historical account.

That is how Myths come to an end.

There are people right now SEARCHING for an historical Jesus because the one in the NT is a Myth.

As soon as they find the historical Jesus we will see the End of Myth Jesus.

Ehrman found Nothing but Embarrassing stories, forgeries, fiction and unreliable sources but had the "heart" to claim his Jesus is truly man.

Are you going to hijack this thread and turn it into yet another HJ vs. mythicist debate?

The conversation at hand doesn't require that Jesus' historicity be resolved. It would be nice if we could talk about Jesus and possible mythological borrowing within Christian lore without being forced to endure your single-track mind and your broken caps lock button.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-17-2012, 10:24 AM	#63
semiopen Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Hillsborough, NJ Posts: 3,551	Just to put my replies in context: There are two questions we are debating - Should TLH be translated as impalement, and is the Talmud an authoritative source for second temple capital punishment. It seems clear that impalement is pretty much as reasonable an interpretation as hang; from what I've learned here it seems better. The Talmudic interpretations of punishment methodology are certainly reasonable (these guys did know the bible) but my guess is that they have little connection with historical reality. Why would someone think that their concept in any way reflects actual practices say in 300 BCE? Some research might make this less murky, but general principles implies that it is safest to assume that the talmud is not correct in this matter.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.