Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Onias · 05-15-2013, 10:06 PM

False Apostle Paul thinks he is quoting the Torah when he writes:

Galatians 3:13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming 26 a curse for us (because it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”)

Paul apparently thinks JC was accursed for being crucified.

But this is yet another of Paul's misquotes!

Disposition of a Criminal’s Remains

Deut 21:22 If a person commits a sin punishable by death and is executed, and you hang the corpse on a tree, 21:23 his body must not remain all night on the tree; instead you must make certain you bury him that same day, for the one who is left exposed on a tree is cursed by God. You must not defile your land which the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance.
http://bible.org/netbible/

It is clear from the above that a person is first killed and then hung on a tree (not a cross) and if left on the tree all night it is accursed.

So neither is the fictional JC accursed by crucifixion or any of the historic zealots accursed by being crucified by a foreign power.

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.

Cesc · 05-16-2013, 02:31 AM

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.

Cesc · 05-16-2013, 02:40 AM

In the commentary scroll on Nahum from the DSS the author does exactly what Paul does, I believe, in that he refers to Deut 21:23 in connection with crucifixion.

Chili · 05-16-2013, 05:26 AM

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 topic here is "Corpse of a Criminal" where Deuteronomy speaks of a capital offence for which the sentence is death, and the corpse will be hung on tree but will not remain there overnight.

Opposite this, the one who is left to die on the cross will receive God's curse instead, and now to leave the corpse of a criminal hang overnight is to defile "the land which is the Lord, your God is giving as an inheritance [to you]".

Bolding is mine to point at the literary tool used called 'synthesis' wherein the comma is placed between Lord and your God to make the 'land of Israel your Lord, that is given as an inheritance to you by God.

This here shows that Is-ra-el is not physical piece of land but a state of mind that can be received only from God, as if it was a dowry (inheritance) given to you by God himself.

The flip side of this would be the "wrath of God poured in the cup of his anger" as shown in Rev.14:10 that will not go away either as shown in verse 11 that follows, wherein so the difference is made known between heaven and hell, with hell being the deprivation of this gift called Is-ra-el from God to you.

Paul doesn't misquote. What he does is transfer the blessing bestowed on Abraham from the Jews to the gentiles through Christ Jesus wherein Christ is the gift and Jesus is the transformer who so died to the OT promise made by the prophets to the short version that we call Holy Spirit.

In this sense Paul confirms the HS as valid in NT circles only.

In essence he so validates Christ in NT context and died on our behalf to the OT law [only] to set the NT apart form the OT, as a new religion under the same God, much like a grafted branch on the same trunk.

Notice that he does not say Jesus Christ but Christ Jesus wherein Christ is the gift and Jesus the crucified man who received God's curse while on the cross . . . . in Luke and in John to show that in these 2 Gospels Jesus was not forsaken by God as he was in Matthew and Luke.

semiopen · 05-16-2013, 05:51 AM

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.

stephan huller · 05-16-2013, 06:37 AM

The concept of crucifixion is present in very early Samaritan hymns from the earliest period of surviving literature (second - fourth century CE). I too have posted this before, from a translation of my friend Rory Boid:

Quote:

Hymn I
by Marqe

...

ל Punishments don’t disconcert the sinner, nor do wounds frighten him. He doesn’t take any notice. The rebel sees himself delivered up to punishments, and finds himself crucified.[1] He turns to his possessions(?) and knows that there is no enjoyment from it.

מִ Death can be compared to a Priest making someone drink the Bitter Water of Testing.[2] Woe on whoever is found to have committed sin. Woe on all sinners, since they will be in great distress. The punishments they suffer are the result of all their offences.

נִ The soul (or individual) stands dumbfounded. Those living are in great affliction, because the Good has turned his face away from them. If the Merciful does not save, and remember those that love him, all the sinners will bewail themselves, because they are in great distress.

סִ The signs tell us that in this generation of ours there is not a single person not in partnership with sinners. The mothers and children, all of whom took part and rebelled,[3] they too are punished with[4] crucifixion.[5]

עִ The fact is that by our sins we are the ones that are the murderers, murderers of the silent and those that can speak. Innocent animals or children that have never sinned, or young adults of good descent, suffer for sins they never committed.

פִ It is the Age of Disfavor[6] that has brought all this suffering about. The fruit of the womb is stopped, and the fruit of the earth destroyed. Every place is becoming accursed for us. The mouth of punishment is open before, ready to swallow up the baby with the old man.

ר Merciful and Good, treat us justly and well as is your nature. We can’t withstand this judgment. A leaf on a tree startles a sinner, so how can we withstand judgment that startles the world? Treat us justly and well, so that we aren’t crucified [6] by punishments[7]

[1] The word from the root tsade-lamed-bet in Verse Lamed is מצטלבה miṣṭållēbå. It is a perfectly normal ethpa’al participle (to use Syriac terminology) equivalent to the Hebrew hitpa’el. The t.et is an infix. It is the tav of the hitpa’el or ethpa’al which moves to AFTER a sibilant and changes its form to match the sibilant. Here it changes from tav to tsade. Next to zayin it will change to dalet. The only difficulty is the suffix, which in form is either feminine indefinite or masculine definite. The second grammatical interpretation of the suffix gives “The rebel sees himself vulnerable to punishments, and knows that he himself is the one crucified”. The first interpretation gives the meaning, “and knows that his identity is crucified”. The word translated “he himself” or “his identity” can only be interpreted from the context and a grammatical analysis of the components of the word, since the usage here is not attested elsewhere.
[2] I have translated according to the traditional Samaritan etymology and understanding, which is not far from the traditional Jewish understanding. Disregard the mangling by most modern translations. This is water that is drunk to establish innocence. It has a tiny little bit of the dirt of the ground round the Sanctuary in it, as well as something to make it bitter, from memory I think wormwood. A guilty person is afflicted by it. (It was a wonderful device for clearing people of slander). The innocent person unjustly accused is given better bodily and mental and spiritual health by it. (This is one of the hints of resurrection in the Torah, and Marqe seems to have it in mind along with the other meanings). The false accuser who has sworn a false oath or committed perjury or conspiracy is struck by afflictions or even in some cases death. The passage in the Torah is in Numbers. I will look up the reference later. There is a lot of traditional theory not stated in the words of the Torah but agreed on by Samaritans and Jews
[3] tashnîqayya. This is the traditional Samaritan understanding here, but Ben-Hayyim argues for the meaning “burnt up”. The Aramaic verb is apparently from the root tsade-lamed-bet, and this is how the Samaritans understand it. Ben-Hayyim thinks this to be a phonetic variant of tsade-lamed-he-bet in this place, but it seems to me that he is scratching round for alternatives to the traditional understanding because he can’t see the relevance of it
[4] maradu
[5] or 'suffer'
[6] Fanuta a core Samaritan theological concept history being divided into periods of favor and disfavor.
[7] verb is shin-nun-qof
[8] The verb shin-vav-bet is Hebrew. The Aramaic equivalent is tav-vav-bet. The participle of the Aramaic verb is Ta’eb. I think your question is whether the Aramaic tav-vav-bet occurs. No. In Verse Yod the verb h.et-zayin-resh is used to mean returning to God or repenting. This is the usual Samaritan theological equivalent of the Hebrew shin-vav-bet when writing in Aramaic. The word Ta’eb does not mean someone that repents. It means someone that comes back again. It is used in the the extant texts in the sense of someone that makes something come back again, the Tabernacle or the Ruuta. That is grammatically impossible. In that meaning the af‘al participle would be needed (=Hebrew hif‘il), i.e. metib. This means the original meaning of the return of Moses has been deliberately obscured.

The original comments comments from the translator Boid after my request:

(a) The only hymn of Marqe’s I could find that fits what you said is no. I. This is recited in part on every Sabbath and every Festival. Notice this. At some time it must have been laid down that it had to be recited constantly. It will take me some time to translate. It has 22 verses, each with seven lines. 22 x 7 = 154.

This hymn speaks of death and destruction in the present, wrought by estrangement from the will of God, and urges a reversal of behaviour. One verse could be taken as referring to executions, depending on how you understand one word. This is the fifth verse. Other verses might refer to this, but not directly.

“As a consequence of the sins we have committed, we are afflicted (or punished) with the TShNYQYH. [Look up the root ShNQ in Jastrow]. We can’t blame your goodness. All the blame is on us, since we ourselves have made ourselves perish. If someone goes and hits himself, who can rescue him?”.

Tashnîqayyå is the definite plural of T Sh N Y Q tashneq from the root Sh N Q. Ben-Hayyim is not at all convinced that it always means strangulation.

(b) The hymns translated by Kippenberg are from the collection called the Durran. They are very old. These are the hymns that talk about a very recent rejection of wrong religious practice or perhaps wrong doctrine.

(c) There is a lot of work to be done on the Samaritan liturgy

Jeffrey Gibson · 05-16-2013, 06:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

The concept of crucifixion is present in very early Samaritan hymns from the earliest period of surviving literature (second - fourth century CE).

And this is relevant to the OP how?

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson · 05-16-2013, 06:50 AM

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 (or via: amazon.co.uk) runs the risk of being woefully under-informed.

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson · 05-16-2013, 06:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by semiopen

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.

Isn't the real issue what κρεμάννυμι means when used with ἐπὶ ξύλου?

Jeffrey

semiopen · 05-16-2013, 07:04 AM

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.

05-15-2013, 10:06 PM	#1
Onias Regular Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Primary residence in New York State Posts: 231	Is a Crucified Person Accursed? False Apostle Paul thinks he is quoting the Torah when he writes: Galatians 3:13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming 26 a curse for us (because it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”) Paul apparently thinks JC was accursed for being crucified. But this is yet another of Paul's misquotes! Disposition of a Criminal’s Remains Deut 21:22 If a person commits a sin punishable by death and is executed, and you hang the corpse on a tree, 21:23 his body must not remain all night on the tree; instead you must make certain you bury him that same day, for the one who is left exposed on a tree is cursed by God. You must not defile your land which the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance. http://bible.org/netbible/ It is clear from the above that a person is first killed and then hung on a tree (not a cross) and if left on the tree all night it is accursed. So neither is the fictional JC accursed by crucifixion or any of the historic zealots accursed by being crucified by a foreign power. 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.

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

05-16-2013, 02:31 AM	#2
Cesc Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Copenhagen, Denmark Posts: 322	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.

05-16-2013, 02:40 AM	#3
Cesc Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Copenhagen, Denmark Posts: 322	In the commentary scroll on Nahum from the DSS the author does exactly what Paul does, I believe, in that he refers to Deut 21:23 in connection with crucifixion.

05-16-2013, 06:50 AM	#8
Jeffrey Gibson Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 3,058	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 (or via: amazon.co.uk) runs the risk of being woefully under-informed. Jeffrey

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.