Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jeffrey Gibson · 05-16-2013, 08:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

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.

Leaving aside the matter how you've just engaged in equivocation (you are really good at using logical fallacies when someone dares to question your claims), let me note that I'm sure David Chapman would be interested in knowing what a scholarly slouch and irresponsible scholar he is. Perhaps you'll be good enough to let him know and to do him the service of correcting him.

You may reach him through his department's secretary at

gerry.reimer@covenantseminary.edu

Jeffrey

semiopen · 05-16-2013, 08:26 AM

Chapman's book is available online - almost 7 Meg.

The reviews seems favorable, for example.

That being said, I think that the discussions here have been on a relatively high level. My major issue has been correcting inexact references to TLH as meaning hanging. A few months ago, I thought that was debatable but now I'm convinced that this is just inaccurate, and damages the discussion because it papers over a critical point.

It seems that to vaguely refer to this book as if absurd unidtentified bullshit is being spouted here is uncalled for. Personally, I have no problem with any of my inaccuracies being pointed out.

Jeffrey Gibson · 05-16-2013, 08:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by semiopen

Chapman's book is available online - almost 7 Meg.

The reviews seems favorable, for example.

For a more extensive review, see here:

http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetai...&CodePage=7367

Quote:

That being said, I think that the discussions here have been on a relatively high level. My major issue has been correcting inexact references to TLH as meaning hanging. A few months ago, I thought that was debatable but now I'm convinced that this is just inaccurate, and damages the discussion because it papers over a critical point.

What have you been using to check the legitimacy (or not) of the translation of TLH?

Jeffrey

Iskander · 05-16-2013, 09:05 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.

Jesus was crucified by the Romans because he was perceived to be a political threat to them.
His crucifixion has nothing to do with a Christianity not yet in existence when he was executed and it has nothing to do with the Jews who were the impotent spectators of the events unfolding in their home country.

Quote:

The Rabbinic sources for many sayings and parables attributed to Jesus strengthen this point of view. Personally, I agree with this position. Jesus' Jewish background enables us to understand the differences and disagreements that existed between the Jewish community and Jesus himself. Thus, it appears that the Jewish traditions that speak of the historicity of Jesus were correct

There is no doubt that Jesus was crucified by the Romans because of their fear of the awakening of a messianic political movement. Crucifixion was a singularly Roman method of capital punishment. However, at a later stage the Christians developed the idea that the Jews were responsible for the death of Jesus. Jesus died a Roman death at the hands of the Romans, as a direct result of the decision of the Romans and perhaps some collaborators. There is no clearer proof for Jesus' death as a Jew at the hand of the Romans' than the crown of thorns that, according to Christian sources, the Romans placed upon Jesus' head. This was a mocking proclamation of Jesus as the King of the Jews, a King who wears a crown of thorns, in place of a crown of gold. In this manner, the Roman ridiculed Jesus' belief in himself as the messiah.

http://search.freefind.com/servlet/f...ry=crucifixion

stephan huller · 05-16-2013, 09:56 AM

Quote:

what a scholarly slouch

you really are something jeffrey. you want scholars to be regarded as infallible and all knowing. they are at best highly skilled plumbers in the house of God. the fact that as a Jewish man I can't or won't fix all things around my house doesn't lead to my regarding repairmen as semi-divine beings. like the scholars you mention they are skilled workers but still a few grades below "architects". you might need them to build and maintain a house but they rarely rise to level of profundity.

Celebrate these lunch bucket intellectuals if you must. A person of means can rent their services when needed. (Assuming someone cared about this shit and was willing to pay for it). We always want to know a handyman for practical reasons but God forbid if all our friends wear toolbelts.

Marqe is "out of the box" for the current generation of scholars. But they will come to include him one day. They just didn't learn about him in trade school. Our efforts should be directed at establishing better apprenticeship training and reminding scribes of their place in the cosmic hierarchy

Jeffrey Gibson · 05-16-2013, 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Marqe is "out of the box" for the current generation of scholars.

Whether he is out of the box or not (something that needs to be proved, BTW), he is no earlier than 4th century. So given that Chapman was intent to deal with materials earlier than that, your are now (and once more) simply carping.

But as I said before, if you feel that people are not taking into account what you think should be taken into account, then you should get off your ass and post to where those very people reside -- in the professional journals, not here.

Jeffrey

Chili · 05-16-2013, 10:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by semiopen

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?
N/A

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.

Obviously Geza Vermes does not see the comedy in this.

Be it known here that crucifixion is the crisis moment that is followed by burial and subsequent resurrection, that must obviously be true if the change brought about by crucifixion is either comedy or tragedy wherein "the land of Israel" is either received or is not.

Israel is called 'motherland' here as the home of the Jew, now longer Jew but Israelite in his own right, that in the Gospels is called Christ as the Son identified from the cross to set the NT apart from the OT.

It so is the Efficient Cause via the Material Cause for the Final Cause of the existence of the NT.

From the article you cited:

Quote:

Finally, let us speculate for a moment and ask whether the chief priests of Jerusalem, if they had the power in c. 30 CE to apply the Jewish law incorporated in the Qumran Temple Scroll, might have condemned Jesus to crucifixion. Could Jesus have been charged with betrayal, endangering the wellbeing, or even survival, of the Judaean people? In their view, pretending to be the promised Messiah, Jesus could easily have inspired a rebellion against the Emperor, provoking a massive and violent Roman repression. He would thus have betrayed the interests and endangered the survival of his people. His political crime should have been punished by crucifixion in the light of the legislation enacted in the Temple Scroll.

Clearly, the chief priests of the Gospels were not familiar with this legislation, nor would they have accepted it as binding in their day. Nevertheless they sought to avoid personal responsibility, and according to the New Testament trial accounts of questionable historicity, they decided to pass the buck and let Pilate do the dirty work.

The chief priests knew exactly what they were doing and knew also how it was supposed to be done, wherein the impostor as pharisee is made known by being the final impostor who is much worse than the first. Read Matt. 27:64 on this, so with a tragedy to follow wherein the body was stolen and hence was an 'apostle short' when the great commission was ordered, to say that the mystery of faith had not been resolved (Matt.28 16 = 11 just like Macbeth has only 11).

. . . and here scholars are killing 500 Jews a day, with 2000 seen a mass crucifixion event (a 'good day' maybe?), and for how many days did they say? and the women were impaled for sexual impurity . . . while the Laws were given to Moses not to stop sin but to convict man is sin, and hence sin is good and here the scholars are killing them all.

stephan huller · 05-16-2013, 10:26 AM

The date for Marqe is not fixed at 4th century. Broadie = 1st century. Kippenberg, Boid, Stenhouse = 2nd/3rd century. There is so much to do, so few workers

Jeffrey Gibson · 05-16-2013, 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

The date for Marqe is not fixed at 4th century. Broadie = 1st century. Kippenberg, Boid, Stenhouse = 2nd/3rd century.

Biblio, please, not just names. And interesting, isn't it, that these (Samaritan?) scholars can't agree among themselves.

Quote:

There is so much to do, so few workers

Then get off your ass and become one of them or stop yapping away here.

Jeffrey

Toto · 05-16-2013, 10:38 AM

Gentlemen - a bit more decorum, please

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

05-16-2013, 08:26 AM	#22
semiopen Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Hillsborough, NJ Posts: 3,551	Chapman's book is available online - almost 7 Meg. The reviews seems favorable, for example. That being said, I think that the discussions here have been on a relatively high level. My major issue has been correcting inexact references to TLH as meaning hanging. A few months ago, I thought that was debatable but now I'm convinced that this is just inaccurate, and damages the discussion because it papers over a critical point. It seems that to vaguely refer to this book as if absurd unidtentified bullshit is being spouted here is uncalled for. Personally, I have no problem with any of my inaccuracies being pointed out.

05-16-2013, 10:26 AM	#28
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	The date for Marqe is not fixed at 4th century. Broadie = 1st century. Kippenberg, Boid, Stenhouse = 2nd/3rd century. There is so much to do, so few workers

05-16-2013, 10:38 AM	#30
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Gentlemen - a bit more decorum, please

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.