Freethought & Rationalism Archive

stephan huller · 05-16-2013, 07:07 AM

Quote:

And this is relevant to the OP how?

Closing words of the OP

Quote:

Moreover, any zealot crucified for sedition by the Romans would not be a criminal by Israelite law as the Torah instructs against allowing any foreigner to reign over Israel and thus revolt is positively sanctioned.

The hymn demonstrates the opposite, namely that what became the official Samaritan religion accepted or even tolerated Imperial persecutions against 'rebels.' The rebels were regarded as justly crucified i.e. that the crucifixions were from God through the Roman government but the real source was "the Age of Fanuta that has brought all this suffering about ..."

stephan huller · 05-16-2013, 07:11 AM

In fact I would argue that my citation is more on topic than anything you cited. Onias seems to be implying that it would be impossible for Paul to have interpreted the Law as accepting the idea of just or deserved crucifixion of a rebel. I have just demonstrated the exact opposite to be true.

Jeffrey Gibson · 05-16-2013, 07:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by semiopen

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Anyone who wishes to pontificate about Jewish attitudes towards crucifixion but who hasn't read David Chapman's Ancient Jewish and Christian Perceptions of Crucifixion runs the risk of being woefully under-informed.

Jeffrey

Are you saying that further posts in this thread are limited to people who have read this book?

That's pretty absurd Jeffrey.

Nope. What I'm saying is that people who think they are fully informed on matters raised in the OP but who have not read this book are not as informed as they might or should be.

But of course, knowing knowing very little about a subject has never stopped posters here from claiming that they speak with authority and laying claim to knowledge that it's obvious they do not possess.

Jeffrey

Chili · 05-16-2013, 07:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by semiopen

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cesc

Also Acts 5:30; 10:39; 13:29 and 1 Pet 2:24 uses ξυλον ("tree; wood") instead of σταυρος ("pole" or "cross"). It is not unlikely that Jesus (if there was one) would have been "crucified" by being hung on a tree.

Moreover, although Deut 21 probably speaks of hanging the dead body on a tree, hanging people on a tree till they die may have been a fertility ritual type of sacrificial execution to the ancient Israelites. As a propitiatory sacrifice to Yahweh, just as is understood with Jesus for the Christians.

Paul doesn't misquote. What he does is treat the Scriptures as sacred words, so that any passage can have a meaning out of context.
That Jesus was taken down from his cross before the night may as well be a later tradition.

The hanging discussed in the bible is actually impalement according to modern thought.

I've posted the link below to Geza Vermes article several times.

Was Crucifixion a Jewish Penalty?

Quote:

To find the clue, one has to start with Deuteronomy 21:22, ordering the display of the dead body of a stoned person tied to a tree or some kind of pole. By contrast, execution by "hanging" entails the affixing of someone alive to the wooden gibbet until death ensues. Whether the criminal was attached to the tree by means of a rope or with nails is not specified. Judging from Josephus's numerous mentions of Roman executions, the Pharisees executed by Jannaeus were crucified. By his time and in his writings, late first century CE, the Greek anastaurôsai = crucify from stauros = cross, left no possible room for doubt.

I'm not sure what deeper point you are trying to make, but the use of the term "hanging" is a misreading of the hebrew word "Talah" which more accurately means impalement.

The deeper point is not really deep at all if "the land of the Lord, here called Christ, is the inheritance received from God while on the cross, opposite to which the pharisees did not receive this gift as forsaken by God.

Now impalement is a very nice word but it is obvious that 'impaled by a pole' is not exactly the same as the 'land of Israel' being the inheritance received from God to you first cause.

And notice that women were also impaled instead of being the essence of Israel made known to man = dowry in betrothal first hand received from God.

To understand this concept read about Nairatmya, again and again if that is what it takes to understand.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nairatmya

And be sure not to miss this line in it:

"Her eyes blaze with the wisdom of one who understands the mysteries and depths of life."

And let me add that as soon as a critic talks about 'clues, and hues, and modes, and moods and colors and tones including the blues, he is already telling you that he has not got a clue, but likely went to school too long for his own good.

stephan huller · 05-16-2013, 07:15 AM

And I have never read Chapman's book but I bet he doesn't mention Marqe. I am sure it is still a worthwhile read but this is also demonstrated to be a falsehood - from the publisher "this thorough study covers all the primary data on how early Jews and Christians perceived crucifixion." While Samaritans are not mentioned explicitly, they should have been to help answer questions like the one put forward by Onias - i.e. what is or isn't possible with the Law.

Jeffrey Gibson · 05-16-2013, 07:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

In fact I would argue that my citation is more on topic than anything you cited. Onias seems to be implying that it would be impossible for Paul to have accepted the idea of just or deserved crucifixion of a rebel. I have just demonstrated the exact opposite to be true.

Except that it appears that Paul did not view Jesus as a rebel or one who was siding with Israel, but as a law breaker and one who was leading Israel astray.

Jeffrey

stephan huller · 05-16-2013, 07:19 AM

But Onias consistently presupposes that Jesus was a revolutionary and went on further to argue that this position was antithetical to any normative interpretation of the Law. What is one supposed to do? Ignore the thread? Is there only one right way to answer a query?

Jeffrey Gibson · 05-16-2013, 07:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

And I have never read Chapman's book but I bet he doesn't mention Marqe. I am sure it is still a worthwhile read but this is also demonstrated to be a falsehood - from the publisher "this thorough study covers all the primary data on how early Jews and Christians perceived crucifixion." While Samaritans are not mentioned explicitly, they should have been to help answer questions like the one put forward by Onias - i.e. what is or isn't possible with the Law.

How is a relatively late Samaritan hymn "primary" data?

Sorry, more hobby horse riding.

Jeffrey

stephan huller · 05-16-2013, 07:34 AM

Calling the inclusion of primary Samaritan material - a hymn that is read at every gathering of Samaritans at any time (= i.e. it is hymn #1 for a reason) a 'hobby horse' is ludicrous. Rather scholarship unjustly and unreasonably ignores Samaritan material. The same thing used to be perpetrated against Jewish source material but the presence of large number of Jews at major educational institutions in the West changed that. The Samaritans aren't afforded the same influence and so they are ignored by systematizers like Jeffrey who - for the sake of intellectual 'neatness' - unconsciously or otherwise exclude ancient witnesses which make everything messy.

stephan huller · 05-16-2013, 07:37 AM

The exclusion of Samaritan source material is undoubtedly also connected with (a) the difficulties associated with Samaritan Aramaic (Gaster made a fool of himself trying to translate Samaritan material into English via Jewish Aramaic) and (b) the fact that most of the later material is in Arabic. If Marqe survived in Greek I am sure Jeffrey would be more open to citing it.

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

05-16-2013, 07:11 AM	#12
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	In fact I would argue that my citation is more on topic than anything you cited. Onias seems to be implying that it would be impossible for Paul to have interpreted the Law as accepting the idea of just or deserved crucifixion of a rebel. I have just demonstrated the exact opposite to be true.

05-16-2013, 07:15 AM	#15
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	And I have never read Chapman's book but I bet he doesn't mention Marqe. I am sure it is still a worthwhile read but this is also demonstrated to be a falsehood - from the publisher "this thorough study covers all the primary data on how early Jews and Christians perceived crucifixion." While Samaritans are not mentioned explicitly, they should have been to help answer questions like the one put forward by Onias - i.e. what is or isn't possible with the Law.

05-16-2013, 07:19 AM	#17
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	But Onias consistently presupposes that Jesus was a revolutionary and went on further to argue that this position was antithetical to any normative interpretation of the Law. What is one supposed to do? Ignore the thread? Is there only one right way to answer a query?

05-16-2013, 07:34 AM	#19
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Calling the inclusion of primary Samaritan material - a hymn that is read at every gathering of Samaritans at any time (= i.e. it is hymn #1 for a reason) a 'hobby horse' is ludicrous. Rather scholarship unjustly and unreasonably ignores Samaritan material. The same thing used to be perpetrated against Jewish source material but the presence of large number of Jews at major educational institutions in the West changed that. The Samaritans aren't afforded the same influence and so they are ignored by systematizers like Jeffrey who - for the sake of intellectual 'neatness' - unconsciously or otherwise exclude ancient witnesses which make everything messy.

05-16-2013, 07:37 AM	#20
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	The exclusion of Samaritan source material is undoubtedly also connected with (a) the difficulties associated with Samaritan Aramaic (Gaster made a fool of himself trying to translate Samaritan material into English via Jewish Aramaic) and (b) the fact that most of the later material is in Arabic. If Marqe survived in Greek I am sure Jeffrey would be more open to citing it.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.