Duvduv

I guess you would have to show the breadth of traditional Jewish scholarship and grammarians who would interpret the word TALA as impaling instead of hanging, thereby reinterpreting all of these cases. There is no basis for it, however. And you would have to show the sources that would compare the usage here as impaling with any and all actual other uses meaning HANGING. And you would need to understand the difference from the word SH-P-D meaning a spit thrust through.

There is no precedent that I am aware of in the context or meaning for tala to be considered as sh-p-d instead of regular hanging.
In the biblical or talmudic commentaries or anywhere else, even once. It would be expected somewhere around among commentators from the Talmud to the last centuries where the word tala/hang was interchangeable with sh-p-d to penetrate with a spit.

la70119

I posted the one about Haman from Esther in post #48, above.

In the Septuagint of Esther, the עץ (tree, wood, timber, log, lumber, pole) is referred to as a ξυλον (wood, timber, tree, stake, cross, gallows), but in chapter 7 verse 9, the king of Persia says, "σταυρωθήτω επ' αυτου" ("pale him on it"). This was before σταυροω meant crucify by nailing to a cross; judging from what was done to Onomarchus (Diodorus Siculus 16.61.2: his corpse was dismembered and then "crucified"), it meant "pile-drive, pale, impale" as well as "impalisade, fence with pales, drive foundation piles or naval defensive piles"

la70119

Yes, exactly! And Lucian when he wrote his Prometheus on Caucasus, used nearly every Greek verb that stood for Roman crucifixion in the book, including several that properly meant "impale" but probably without a doubt are translated as "crucify."

English translation here.

Duvduv

I repeat, you won't find any Jewish sources interpreting tala as referring to impaling.
At least bring a famous grammarian such as Donash from Spain or Saadiah Gaon from Babylonia. Someone. Somewhere.

la70119

I for one think they went with just "hang" for talah, unless it was plainly stated out otherwise by the context, or the phrase talah 'al 'etz. Then they translated it as "impale," a more primitive method of crucifixion, and a valid one according to the Romans.

Two Roman examples:

Note: Bostock translated cruci fixos as "hung upon a cross" but even Julius Lipsius knew this was impossible; hence, Lipsius interpreted this as impaled on sharpened stakes. (de Cruce 1.6, top of pg. 12)

Now back to 2 Samuel 4;12, David W. Chapman has concluded (Ancient Jewish and Christian Perceptions of Crucifixion, pp. 154, 174) that what King David did when he hanged them was "suspend" them according to the Ancient Near East methods generally in use round-about at the time and adopted by the Israelites / Judeans, i.e., impalement; citing as backup the use of cognates of the Aramaic tzlb, "to hang, impale, crucify" in the various Targumin.

So David could have impaled them, but then again, would that be necessary? Surely it would have been normative for him to do that, given what we know of Ancient Near East penal bodily suspensions, but it wasn't explicitly mentioned as talah 'al 'etz and there are obviously other ways of hanging, even in ancient Israel. The LXX and the LV don't make it any easier to determine: they use ἐκρέμασαν (hanged) and suspenderunt (suspend).

So I figure the team who were translating the 1985 Tanakh knew exactly what they were doing.

Davka

Something that seems to get lost in many of these discussions is that fact that the inter-testamental era was one of turmoil and extremism among the various multiple Jewish sects which sprang up. Not only did Hellenism play a large part in the transmogrification of Jewish thought, but the success of the "impure" Maccabean Revolt (what was YHWH thinking?) and the utter crushing of the Jewish kingdoms under Roman rule caused many to look for truly unorthodox (pun intended) explanations.

For example, the contradictory accounts of Messiah in the various prophetic books gave rise to all sorts of speculation, including the infamous "two messiahs" theory, as well as R. Hillel's statement that messiah would not come at all, because Israel had "consumed" him in the days of Hezekiah.

All this to say that, by the time the Temple was destroyed in 70 CE, sectarian Messianic theories abounded. Some of the writings found in Qumran attest to this trend. That the Pauline sect happened to win a great number of converts is likely due to two factors: First, it gave Jews hope that Messiah had not only come, but was about to return and kick some serious Roman butt. Second, by including Gentiles in the new mystery religion, it extended the "hope of glory" to anyone who was willing to join in. Yes, you too can be part of the Chosen People, just sign here and we'll promise you eternal life and a spiritual circumcision!

Had things played out just slightly differently, Christianity would have been a far different faith - or perhaps never have caught on at all.

aa5874

The DSS do NOT mention Paul or any thing Pauline. You really don't seem to understand that the Pauline writings are Blasphemy to the Jews. Please, please, please, there is NOTHING documented in the 1st century where it was expected that a Jewish Messiah would be worshped as a God and Sacrificed for Remission of Sins because of GOD'S LOVE.

We have Philo, Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius and they do NOT give any hints at all of anything even close to the Pauline teachings all over the Empire in at least Seven regions that a Jewish Messiah had ABOLISHED the Laws of the Jews for Remission of Sins by the resurrection.

la70119

What about the Septuagint, Josephus and Philo of Alexandria?

The Septuagint has the example in Esther I already cited, where Saul and Johnathan died in battle and they were hanged, where it says they were thrust (taqa) on the wall of Bethshan, the Sept uses κατέπηξαν (to fasten or fix in or down on, thrust down on, plant). Remember, the Sept used to be Jewish, before Xtians read things into it that the Jewish priests or rabbis who created it never meant it to say. And for talah it uses the Greek κρεμάννυμι which meant, "hang (by any means), (incl.) impale, crucify."


Philo uses an especially obvious Greek verb for impalement, ἀνασκολοπίζω, when he refers to putting someone up on a pole, that is, a σταυρός, including in the example of the Pharoah's Baker and his interpretation of the Deuteronomic hanging ordinance. He even uses the same impalement verb for crucifixions by the Roman Prefect Flaccus (which means at the time crucifixion had an element of impalement to it).

Josephus, on the other hand, uses σταυρόω and ἀνασταυρόω which when he wrote, generally meant "crucify" but even then he lets it known sometimes that he means "impale," like when the Philistines hanged Saul and his sons who fell with him in battle. (Of course, he only uses these crucifxion / impalement verbs when describing hangings by the goyyim. Examples: the Pharoah's Baker, Saul and Johnathan, Haman)

la70119

Indeed. Neither do any of the graffiti in Pompeii frequently interpreted as Christian.

Duvduv

The Greek is not precise and confusing if it means that a nail was thrust through Saul on the wall and the term is used in Numbers 25 as well. Again it means hanging from a long hook. How does one otherwise stick a spike through a body into a hard stone wall? What happens is the body was strung up attached to a long piece. Same thing happened with Saul's skull.

The term tala is never meant as anything other than hanging in the air. Please find among all traditional Jewish sources otherwise.
Haman and his ten sons were hanged from the neck.