Pantera

This does belong in BC&A. Off we go.

Asha'man

The explanation provided by Robert Sheaffer, and the one I prefer, is that Jesus was actually stoned to death and hung on a tree by the Jewish Sanhedrin. This is the required Jewish punishment for blasphemy.

There are several other passages that reflect this view: Acts 10:39, Acts 13:29, 1 Peter 2:24, and Galatians 3:13.

Later, someone realised that this account wasn't selling well. Some slick preacher changed the story to fit the audience, and Jesus became crucified. This sold much better to a Roman audience, who were more threatened by crucifiction than stoning. By the time the gospels were written, years later, the crucifiction story had become the accepted version.

I think the critical obeservation is when each set of bible verses was written, and how they differ from earlier ones. I suspect that these changes were made to answer objections that the audience had raised.

Toto

<a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN%3D0879756918/internetinfidelsA" target="_blank">Robert Schaeffer's Making of the Messiah</a> seems to have a libertarian agenda. He has also written a book about how resentment of successful people is the root of all modern evil.

From <a href="http://www.debunker.com/books.html" target="_blank">his web page</a>:

Photocrat - I wish I could figure out what you mean by "Dollars to doughnuts you can't tell me why the Jews, especially anti-missionaries, would say that without looking it up, first :] " Why don't you come out and say it?

diana

Apparently, the meaning and purpose of "hanging people on trees" changed between the OT and the new. OK.

d

Grumpy

The word translated as "cross," <a href="http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=4716&version=" target="_blank">stauros</a>, means mainly an upright, pointed stake (think Vlad the Impaler). It is also defined as a cross used in crucifixions. By itself, this doesn't settle the question of whether the Gospel writers were referring to a cross, or if a spike-like stauros fused with the cross image, and the word changed meanings.

Incidentally, it does not appear to mean "tree" in any sense. The word used in Galatians, xulon, seems to mean wood in general, or an upright wooden structure, including a tree (as opposed to dendron or any specific type of tree). The <a href="http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=06086&version=" target="_blank">Hebrew word</a> from the curse in Deuteronomy seems to be a more generic term, like xulon. Again, this could be a retroactive definition to erase the tree/cross condundrum.

[ December 31, 2001: Message edited by: Grumpy ]</p>

CX

It's usually best to cite the translation you are using when quoting the NT. This is obviously from KJV but a citation would have been nice. KJV sucks and uses late Byzantine manuscripts. The Westcott-Hort GNT says:

hO QEOS TWN PATERWN HMWN HGEIREN IHSOUN ON hUMEIS DIEXIRISASQH KREMASANTES EPI EULOU

The significant phrase is in bold. Properly translated is says, "..whom you killed having hanged [him] on a tree."

KREMSANTES is an aorist tense form of the word KREMANNUMI "to hang" (I'd have to check my references to see which aorist tense it is since I don't know of the top of my head). The tense of the verb tells us that it should be rendered "having hanged" and that the action the verb describes refers back to a the event which followed, which is to say the order of events stated by the grammar and syntax of the passage is that they hung him on a tree and that killed him. Note that nowhere in this passage do we find the Greek word for and which is "KAI".

In any case, what is your point? Why are you preoccupied with crucifixes? A crucifix is simply an icon. Most religions have them. Actually crucifixion in the 1st century usually involved nailing an I-beam to a tree and hanging the condemned on it. The arms were nailed to the I-beam through the wrist and the feet were nailed to the tree itself. Sometimes, for mass executions, the romans setup big scaffolds on which to crucify people. Anyway what difference does it make?

[ January 02, 2002: Message edited by: CowboyX ]

[ January 02, 2002: Message edited by: CowboyX ]</p>

Toto

CowboyX - What do you think of Shaeffer's argument cited above?

Could you take this verse as evidence that there was an earlier tradition that had Jesus hung on a tree as part of a Jewish execution, which later evolved into Jesus crucified on a cross? It appears that the cross had a lot of mystic significance in the mystery religions.

Or could it be that the verse in question originally read "slew and hung in a tree", but was later corrupted to read "slew by hanging in a tree" to make it conform to the Gospels?

Just idle speculation to start the New Year off.

CX

The explanation provided by Robert Sheaffer, and the one I prefer, is that Jesus was actually stoned to death and hung on a tree by the Jewish Sanhedrin. This is the required Jewish punishment for blasphemy.

The problem as I see it with Sheaffer's argument is that is highly speculative, not supported by the text evidence and seems to presume the the trial before the Sanhedrin and all that has some historical basis. I see no reason to accept any of those presuppositions, though if the original poster would like to present Shaeffer's argument in full we could certainly discuss it. A number of scholars have suggested, based on what we know of Pilate and Roman practices, that Jesus was probably executed by the Romans for sedition with possibly little involvement from the Sanhedrin. That would have meant crucifixion.

The earliest and most reliable manuscripts have the text just as I rendered it previously. It was common practice to crucify by hang the I-beam on a tree so I see no reason to read more into than that barring some compelling evidence I ahve not yet seen. It seems like quibbling to me and aimed at undermining biblical literalism which personally find to be a crashing bore (no offense to anyone interested in it).

I am not terribly familiar with the Old Testament so I can't comment on the possible references, but more than likely those were just post-hoc uses of scripture by the evangelists to tie Jesus to the story of Israel. AMt does this extensively in order to establish Jesus as the Jewish messiah.

Toto

Then what moved the KJ translators (supposed to be divinely inspired) to come up with an inaccurate translation that creates a Biblical inconsistancy? I can see texts being changed to create conformity, but why introduce a problem?

CX

I'd have to check the Byzantine manuscripts used for the KJV, but more often than not differences are the result of differences in the manuscripts used not differences in translation.