Duvduv

Then why not rely on the traditional Jewish explanation?!

semiopen

I've quoted some sources above which say that impale is the better translation.

The traditional Jewish view is that the Rabbis cannot be contradicted, even when they claim that spontaneous generation (and probably hundreds of other things) is true.

If top current scholars are saying that impale is the better translation, I don't see the problem, especially if they are Jewish.

The sages lacked expertise in Scriptural Hebrew

Personally, knowing my family, passing down shit from Moses to Talmudic times from generation to generation always seemed far fetched. I don't think these guys even believed that.

At least we are in agreement that they are not talking about trees. If eminent and conservtive modern scholars consider impale preferrable to hang for TLH, I'm inclined to give them some credit. These guys weren't working on the skeptics bible but JPS.

la70119

Because as semiopen has just explained, traditional rabbinical interpretation can be easily debunked. Especially when the archaeologists dig up epigraphy that show exactly how Egypt and Assyria had people "hanged upon a tree."

Godfrey

So.... this isn't a thread about Christmas tree ornaments?

Duvduv

Why debunked? Why rely on heap big ancient sources EXCEPT for traditional Jewish ones? I have never figured this out and never will.

la70119

Let me tell you a little something about hanging in Rabbinical Tradition. Go read David W. Chapman's Ancient Jewish and Christian Perspectives on Crucifixion. (Amazon.com) (Amazon.co.uk). In it, Chapman effectively lays out the case that the rabbinical tradition once considered hanging to be basically crucifixion, Roman style, particularly when the Roman Empire was still in existence.

semiopen

I think debunked is not the best word.

For example,

TRADITION

On the other hand, things like prohibiting chicken cheeseburgers were not, but derived by the sages, similar to the prohibition of talking on a cell phone call on Shabbat.

To a modern person the first concept ("law given to Moses on Sinai") is absurd, even if they accept that Moses actually went up Mt Sinai. The letters, in the bible are Assyrian, the Torah wasn't written during the Exodus. This isn't exactly breaking news.

This is why I suggested that the sages didn't mean this literally. If they did mean it literally, they just weren't all that smart.

What bothers me, is that when many Jews do Teshuva Repentance_in_Judaism they often wind up going to a Chabad and tend to believe the Rabbi when he says this shit is literally true. Not only does this compromise the intellectual integrity of the Baal_teshuva (person returning to haredi Judaism) it also often fucks up that person's family.

There is no reason for this, one is not required to actually believe any of this crap.

Duvduv

Can people post their opinions without the use of vulgarities?
Semiopen sounds rather authoritarian in his statements about the views concerning the Torah. I thought non-religious people were supposed to be rather tolerant and not so absolutist (i.e. live and let live).......

semiopen

I have no problem with people believing that Moses went up Sinai and received the ten commandments on the two tablets carved by God with the floating Samekh.

The problem is that, in a forum of this type, believing this literally is an absurd view. Your responsibility as a contributor is to show why this is not absurd.

I think the fucking vulgarities you refer to are my normal conversational writing style and not personally aimed at anyone.

Godfrey

I know that mythicist extremism has tainted this line of thought somewhat, but what do you folks make of the similarities between Jesus being "hung on a tree" and similar myths (like Prometheus being tied to a tree)?

Do these parallels leave leave room for the possibility that some of the more outrageous stories surrounding Jesus (like the Resurrection) were drawn from existing myths?