Duvduv

Just to clarify, according to Maimonides and other commentators, the plank or beam was inserted into the ground and it had an extension or hook. The dead person was tied by his hands (not the neck) to the hook or extension with his hands together for a very brief period near sunset and then removed and buried. The beam and hook, and the stone used in his execution were buried nearby.

This is what would have been the punishment for Yeshu ben Pandera under the authority of the Sanhedrin before the Romans removed the authority of the Sanhedrin in capital punishment cases under Gabinus around 55 BCE.

la70119

But again, you're quoting talmudic, that is, rabbinical sources written after the fall of the temple. Sometimes, considerably later.

Look up the Jewish Publication Society's 1985 English version of the Tanakh, Devoyim (Deuteronomy) 21:22-23. It clearly states, impale upon a stake.

Also David W Chapman's Ancient Jewish and Christian Perspectives of Crucifixion. Here, I'll give you a preview. It even covers תלה ("talah").

la70119

In Jastrow's Dictionary that very same root tsade-lamed-beta (tzlb) and its cognate tsade-lamed-beta-aleph (tzlba) means "hang, impale" and "gallows, stake" and other sources also include "crucify, cross" for the respective words. The targumin frequently substitute tzlb 'al tzlba (stake upon a stake, crucify on a cross, hang upon a gallows) for tlah 'al 'etz (hang upon a tree (old rabbinical), impale upon a stake (1985 JPS)).

semiopen

Thanks for this.

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

I'm not aware of any reason to think this wasn't a "normal" death penalty at some point, other than the Talmudic opinion, which states it wasn't used to kill someone.

The Code of Hammurabi (Harper translation)

la70119

Semiopen, I think they made the change because of epigraphy that archaeologists dug up in Egypt and Assyria (Syria - Iraq), which served as "bookends" to the First Temple Period. Here's an article about this: Impalements in Antiquity (2)

Duvduv

There are many other translations besides the JPS, and in any even I refer back to the original use of the Hebrew and its related Aramaic targums and of course the traditional Jewish commentaries. I fail to see why JPS uses the expresses impale on a stake if they do not rely on traditional Jewish commentaries and the use of the Hebrew word ETZ which means wood or tree.
On the other hand, I suppose the Pauline epistle got the idea of hanging on a "pole" from the Greek.

la70119

Well, עֵץ ('etz) does mean anything wooden. Strong's concordance claims it is derived from עָצָה ('atzah = wink, to shut).
Then there is צלב (tzlb) which eventually displaced תלה (talah). צלב according to some of the Targumin and earliest rabbinical writings, meant to hang or impale, likely "in the manner which the [Roman] government does it" due to the same word "tzlb" in the Christian Palestinian Aramaic, Mandaic and Syriac meaning "crucify," even in the Arabic, where it could have a somewhat broader interpretation. Sifre Deut. 221 actually indicates a live hanging in the [Roman] government manner for the verb תלה (talah). (See Chapman pp. 14-26 in the PDF I linked above.)

But you are right about Paul using σταυρος (pole) and σταυροω (poleify - piledrive - impale - crucify [the last apparently only after 70 CE according to Gunnar Samuelsson]).

Duvduv

The other unambiguous word used for a growing tree is "ilan ".
In any case, the JPS translator would have to demonstrate WHY the use of the term TALA in this case as "impale" is not used elsewhere in the Tanakh. It makes absolutely no sense to read into a straightforward word something that is not there.

semiopen

I guess one thing to do would be to ask the translators or perhaps to read the detailed JPS Commentaries.

English-Language Torah Translations

These are not radical guys.

Leviticus as Literature
MARY DOUGLAS

Only mentions impalement briefly -

Here is Jim Stineheart in another forum

I know Jim slightly and he is a character. I'm not sure I'd agree with much of what he says about anything except on this topic, which is, after all, pretty much mainstream. His reference to Robert Alter demonstrates that the impale translation has wdespread academic support.

EarlDoherty

I would say you've got it the wrong way around. They weren't looking in scripture for a crucifixion (your assumption being that they were prompted to do so by an historical crucifixion). Rather, the earliest cultic Christians imagined that they had discovered a sacrificed divine Messiah in scripture, one who was cursed in order to redeem, and the motif of 'hanging on a tree' which was a prominent element in that scripture was seen as fitting and adopted by some as the (revealed) method of execution. (We find the image of hanging on a tree in, for example, 1 Peter and the Ascension of Isaiah.) Others may have interpreted different elements of scripture (phrases in Isaiah 53 and Zechariah 12, for example) as indicating that this heavenly redeemer underwent crucifixion, and thus Paul used the image of a cross, as did the epistle to the Hebrews.

Early Christian terminology was fluid because it was all based on scripture, not on an historical event on earth. No sectarian movement is monolithic in its thinking and expression, especially in the initial stages.

Earl Doherty