Crucifixion, Nahum Pesher, Penalty of Strangulation*noahbickart.fastmail.fm/_JDST_232...

15
Crucifixion, the Nahum Pesher, and the Rabbinic Penalty of Strangulation* DAVID J. HALPERIN DEPARTMENT OF RELIGION UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA, CHAPEL HILL O ne of the more fervently debated questions in Jewish 0 historiography is that of the Jewish attitude toward crucifixion during the last two centuries of the Second Temple period. Some scholars have held that Jewish courts practised crucifixion or at least did not disapprove of it in theory;' while other scholars assert that Jews regarded crucifixion as an alien and loathsome method of execution imposed by the Roman oppressor.2 In this article, I will examine some peculiarities of rabbinic jurisprudence in the light of a philological observation drawn from the Qumran Nahum Pesher; and I hope thereby to shed new light on this old problem. I Nahum 2:11-13 compares the "bloody city" of Nineveh to a "lion's den," where "the lion tore enough for his whelps and strangled prey for his lionesses; he filled his caves with prey and his dens with torn flesh" (v. 12, RSV). 3 * This paper developed from a lecture which I gave in a course taught jointly with Professor John H. Schiutz, Department of Religion, University of North Carolina. I read an earlier version of it at a meeting of the American Oriental Society, Toronto, April, 1978. 1 am grateful to Professor Schutz and our students, to my colleague Professor John Van Seters, to my teacher Professor Mordechai Friedman, and to my friends Marc Bregman and Professor Sid Z. Leiman, for their comments and suggestions. I E. Stauffer, Jerusalem und Rom im Zeita/terJesu Christi (1957), pp. 123-27; E. Bammel, "Crucifixion as a Punishment in Palestine," in Bammel, The Trial of Jesus (1970), pp. 162-65; Y. Yadin, "Pesher Nahum (4Q pNahum) Reconsidered," IEJ 21 (1971), pp. 1-12 (but cf. Yadin's qualification in Megillat hamMiqdas [1977], 1, p. 289n 11; J. M. Ford, " 'Crucify him, crucify him' and the Temple Scroll," Expository Times 87(1976), pp. 275-78; M. Hengel, Crucifixion (1977), pp. 84-85; J. A. Fitzmyer, "Crucifixion in Ancient Palestine, Qumran Literature, and the New Testament," CBQ 40 (1978), pp. 493-513. 2 P. Winter, On the Trial of Jesus (1961), pp. 62-66; H. Cohn, The Trial and Death of Jesus (1971), pp. 208-39; J. M. Baumgarten, "Does tIh in the Temple Scroll Refer to Crucifixion?" JBL 91 (1972), pp. 472-81. 3 MT (v. 13): 'aryeh (oref bede gorotaw ume/anneq lelib'otaw wayyemalle' (eref h3oraw ume'onotaw (erefah. The text quoted in 4QpNah differs from MT on a number of points; the only one that we need note is its reading melhanneq lelibyotaw (eref for umehanneq lelib'otaw.

Transcript of Crucifixion, Nahum Pesher, Penalty of Strangulation*noahbickart.fastmail.fm/_JDST_232...

Page 1: Crucifixion, Nahum Pesher, Penalty of Strangulation*noahbickart.fastmail.fm/_JDST_232 /Halpern_Crucifiction.pdf · 2018-01-10 · Nahum 2:11-13 compares the "bloody city" of Nineveh

Crucifixion, the Nahum Pesher, and the RabbinicPenalty of Strangulation*

DAVID J. HALPERINDEPARTMENT OF RELIGION

UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA, CHAPEL HILL

O ne of the more fervently debated questions in Jewish0 historiography is that of the Jewish attitude toward crucifixionduring the last two centuries of the Second Temple period. Some scholarshave held that Jewish courts practised crucifixion or at least did notdisapprove of it in theory;' while other scholars assert that Jews regardedcrucifixion as an alien and loathsome method of execution imposed by theRoman oppressor.2

In this article, I will examine some peculiarities of rabbinic jurisprudencein the light of a philological observation drawn from the Qumran NahumPesher; and I hope thereby to shed new light on this old problem.

I

Nahum 2:11-13 compares the "bloody city" of Nineveh to a "lion'sden," where "the lion tore enough for his whelps and strangled prey for hislionesses; he filled his caves with prey and his dens with torn flesh" (v. 12,RSV). 3

* This paper developed from a lecture which I gave in a course taught jointly with ProfessorJohn H. Schiutz, Department of Religion, University of North Carolina. I read an earlierversion of it at a meeting of the American Oriental Society, Toronto, April, 1978. 1 am gratefulto Professor Schutz and our students, to my colleague Professor John Van Seters, to myteacher Professor Mordechai Friedman, and to my friends Marc Bregman and Professor Sid Z.Leiman, for their comments and suggestions.

I E. Stauffer, Jerusalem undRom im Zeita/terJesu Christi (1957), pp. 123-27; E. Bammel,"Crucifixion as a Punishment in Palestine," in Bammel, The Trial ofJesus (1970), pp. 162-65;Y. Yadin, "Pesher Nahum (4Q pNahum) Reconsidered," IEJ 21 (1971), pp. 1-12 (but cf.Yadin's qualification in Megillat hamMiqdas [1977], 1, p. 289n 11; J. M. Ford, " 'Crucifyhim, crucify him' and the Temple Scroll," Expository Times 87(1976), pp. 275-78; M. Hengel,Crucifixion (1977), pp. 84-85; J. A. Fitzmyer, "Crucifixion in Ancient Palestine, QumranLiterature, and the New Testament," CBQ 40 (1978), pp. 493-513.

2 P. Winter, On the Trial of Jesus (1961), pp. 62-66; H. Cohn, The Trial and Death ofJesus (1971), pp. 208-39; J. M. Baumgarten, "Does tIh in the Temple Scroll Refer toCrucifixion?" JBL 91 (1972), pp. 472-81.

3 MT (v. 13): 'aryeh (oref bede gorotaw ume/anneq lelib'otaw wayyemalle' (eref h3orawume'onotaw (erefah. The text quoted in 4QpNah differs from MT on a number of points; theonly one that we need note is its reading melhanneq lelibyotaw (eref for umehanneq lelib'otaw.

Page 2: Crucifixion, Nahum Pesher, Penalty of Strangulation*noahbickart.fastmail.fm/_JDST_232 /Halpern_Crucifiction.pdf · 2018-01-10 · Nahum 2:11-13 compares the "bloody city" of Nineveh

CRUCIFIXION, THE NAHUM PESHER, AND STRANGULATION

An imperfectly preserved fragment of a commentary (peser) on Nahum,found in the Fourth Cave at Qumran, expounds this verse as follows:4

The lion tears by the agency of his cubs, I and strangles prey for hislionesses. [.. . This refers to] the Young Lion of Anger, who smites by meansof his great ones and the men of his council.

[. . Hefilled with prey] his cave, and his den with torn flesh. This refers tothe Young Lion of Anger [ ven]geance [?] on those who seek smooththings, in that he hangs men alive (yitleh 'anasim hayyim) 1 ] in Israelpreviously.

The Pesher continues: ki letaluy #ay 'al ha'es, then a broken word whichis usually reconstructed as some form of qr', and then the beginning of thenext Scripture-lemma (behold, Iam against you, etc.). The interpretation ofthese words, and their link to the following lemma, is a very vexed probleminto which we need not enter.6Most scholars' believe that the Pesher alludes to an uprising against the

Hasmonean ruler Alexander Jannaeus (104-78 B.C.), who celebrated hisultimate victory by crucifying eight hundred rebels "while he feasted withhis concubines in a conspicuous place."8What in the text of Nahum led the Qumran commentator to think of

crucifixion? The only apparent basis for this exegesis is the wordsmehanneq lelibyotaw teref, "strangles prey for his lionesses."9 The

4 4QpNah, i, 4-8; published by J. M. Allegro, Discoveries in the Judaean Desert ofJordan, V (1968), p. 38.

5 The commentator evidently understood bede as bldt,, and expounded accordingly. Thebet in his bigedolaw we'anse 'asato must therefore be translated "by means of" (G. Vermes,The Dead Sea Scrolls in English [2nd ed., 1975], p. 232), not "against" (T. Gaster, The DeadSea Scriptures in English Translation [19561, pp. 243, 263-64). Note the very close exegeticallink between the Scriptural text and the commentator's assertion - a link to be soughtthroughout the Pesher.

6 A. Dupont-Sommer, "Le Commentaire de Nahum decouvert pres de la Mer Morte(4QpNah)," Semitica 13 (1963), pp. 67-68; idem, "Observations nouvelles sur l'expression'Suspendu Vivant sur le Bois' ...," Comptes Rendus des Seances de l'Academie desInscriptions et Belles-Lettres (1972), pp. 712-15.

7 E.g., J. M. Allegro, "Further Light on the History of the Qumran Sect," JBL 75 (1956),pp. 89-95; F. M. Cross, The Ancient Library of Qumran (2nd ed., 1961), pp. 122-26; thearticles of Dupont-Sommer cited in the preceding note; E. Schurer, The History of the JewishPeople in the Age of Jesus Christ (revised ed. by G. Vermes and F. Millar, 1973), 1, pp.224n22; J. D. Amusin, "The Reflection of Historical Events of the First Century B.C. inQumran Commentaries (4Q161; 4Q169; 4Q166)," HUCA 48 (1977), pp. 123-52. Against thisinterpretation: H. H. Rowley, "4QpNahum and the Teacher of Righteousness," JBL 75(1956), pp. 188-93; 1. Rabinowitz, "The Meaning of the Key ('Demetrius')-Passage of theQumran Nahum-Pesher," JAOS 98 (1978), pp. 394-99.

8 Josephus, Antiquities, XIII, 380 (tr. R. Marcus, in the Loeb Classical Library Josephus,VII [1943], p. 417); also War, 1, 97.

, So Schurer-Vermes-Millar, loc. cit. It is not a decisive objection that the Scripture-lemmacontaining these words is not that to which the comment about "hanging men alive" isattached. Dupont-Sommer, Semitica 13 (1963), pp. 69, 73, gives examples of Biblical words orphrases that are expounded in the peser but not quoted in the appropriate lemmata. Vermes,indeed, suggests that the words me/,anneq lelibyotaw feref were repeated in the lacuna at thebeginning of line 6, before "he filled with prey. (The Dead Sea Scrolls in English, p.232).

33

Page 3: Crucifixion, Nahum Pesher, Penalty of Strangulation*noahbickart.fastmail.fm/_JDST_232 /Halpern_Crucifiction.pdf · 2018-01-10 · Nahum 2:11-13 compares the "bloody city" of Nineveh

JOURNAL OF JEWISH STUDIES

commentator evidently understood the "strangling" - a seeminglyinappropriate term for a lion's depredations'°- as a prophetic reference tocrucifixion. Like some of the modern scholars who have discussed thedifficult problem of the physiological cause of death in crucifixion, heperceived crucifixion as a prolonged process of asphyxiation."

If we assume that the "Young Lion of Anger" was indeed Jannaeus, thePesher's exegesis becomes particularly apt. The commentator saw anallusion to Jannaeus' concubines in the "lionesses" of Nahum's prophecy.He interpreted the "lion", who "strangles prey for the delectation of hislionesses" - so he understood the preposition of lelibyotaw'2- as the kingwho crucifies men for the entertainment of his concubines.We learn that the author of the Nahum Pesher regarded crucifixion as a

form of strangulation, and assumed that it could be designated by the roothnq.

II

mSanh. 7:1 enumerates four methods of judicial execution: stoning(seqilah), burning (serefah), decapitation (hereg), and strangulation(heneq). The first two methods are clearly attested in the Bible. 1" The third,although evidently modelled on the standard Roman death penalty for theupper classes, 4 is documented in rabbinic sources by midrash of Scriptural

'° Hence Vulgate paraphrases et necavit leaenis suis, Peshitta wafsaq 'af letenyanohi (butperhaps Peshitta read mehalleq for mehanneq). Cf. J. M. Powis Smith and others, A Criticaland Exegetical Commentary on . . . Nahum . . (1911), p. 333; A. Halder, Studies in theBook ofNahum (1947), p. 61. According to K. J. Cathcart (Nahum in the Light ofNorthwestSemitic [1973], pp. 107-08), lions indeed strangle their prey, and are thus depicted in ancientNear Eastern art. But it is very plausible that the Qumran commentator, like Jerome, wassurprised by the use of lnq for a lion and inferred that it must be applied, not to the lion of theprophetic image, but to the king concealed behind the image.

" See J. Blinzler, Der Prozess Jesu (4th ed., 1969), pp. 381-384. We need not insist on themedical accuracy of this perception. If, as other scholars hold (ibid.), the cause of death on thecross was some sort of circulatory failure, we might expect difficulty breathing or gasping forair to be one of the more obvious symptoms. See The New Encyclopaedia Britannica (I 5th ed.,1974), articles "Cardiovascular System Diseases and Disorders" (Macropaedia, III, pp. 886-95,especially p. 894); "Shock, Physiological" (Macropaedia, XVI, pp. 699-702).

2 As in Judg. 16:25, wigal6eq lanu. Cf. BDB, s.v. I-, no. 5h (p. 515).3 Stoning: e.g., Lev. 20:2, 24:16, Numb. 15:35, Deut. 17:5, IKi. 21:10, 13. Burning: Lev.

20:14, 21:9. Cf. A. BiOchler, "Die Todesstrafen der Bibel und der jOdisch-nachbiblischenZeit," MGWJS50(1906), pp. 542-62, 664-91; J. Blinzler, "The Jewish Punishment of Stoningin the New Testament Period," in Bammel, The Trial of Jesus, pp. 147-61.

" T. Mommsen, Romisches Strafrecht (1899, reprinted 1955), pp. 917-18; P. Garnsey,"Legal Privilege in the Roman Empire," Past and Present 41(1968), pp. 13, 20. Tannaim ofthe mid-second century were aware of the Roman character of this method of execution.mSanh. 7:3 "They would decapitate him with a sword, as does the [Roman] state." R. Judahproposes a different.form of beheading; his colleagues protest that this is "the most repellentof deaths" (ibid.). "R. Judah said to the scholars, I know that it is a repellent form of death,but what can I do? For the Torah says (Lev. 18:3), You shall not walk in their [the Gentiles']statutes" (baraita in bSanh. 52b, cf. tSanh. 9:11).

34

Page 4: Crucifixion, Nahum Pesher, Penalty of Strangulation*noahbickart.fastmail.fm/_JDST_232 /Halpern_Crucifiction.pdf · 2018-01-10 · Nahum 2:11-13 compares the "bloody city" of Nineveh

CRUCIFIXION, THE NAHUM PESHER, AND STRANGULATION 35

texts referring to the "sword" (hereb).`5 The fourth, "strangulation,"lacks all Biblical basis; and the compilers of the Palestinian and BabylonianGemaras, like modern scholars, seem to have been puzzled about itsorigin. 16The only Tannaitic source that discusses the rationale for the imposition

of strangulation is a baraita expounding the formula mot yumat ("he shallsurely be put to death"), invoked in the discussion of three of the Biblicaltexts in which these words occur: 7

He shall surely be put to death - by strangulation. By strangulation? orperhaps by one of the other death penalties prescribed in the Torah? Reply:Any death penalty (mitah) prescribed by the Torah without specification(setam) may not be applied in the direction of severity, but in the direction ofleniency." So the opinion of R. Josiah.

R. Jonathan says: Not because [strangulation] is lenient; but any deathpenalty prescribed by the Torah without specification is necessarily strangu-lation (kol mitah ha'amurah battorah setam 'enah 'ella &eneq). 1'Rabbi [Judah the Patriarch] says: The death penalty is sometimes said [in

Scripture] to come through Divine agency, and sometimes through humanagency. As the death penalty attributed to Divine agency is a death that leavesno mark, so the death penalty [without specification] attributed to a humanagency is to be a death that leaves no mark.

Neither R. Josiah nor R. Jonathan (disciples of R. Ishmael, mid-secondcentury A.D.) attempts to justify the existence of the penalty ofstrangulation, which is taken for granted, but only to demonstrate its

" Mekhilta, MiJpalim ch. 4 (ed. Horowitz-Rabin, pp. 261-62), ch. 7 (p. 273); ySanh. 24b(to 7:1 and 7:3); bSanh. 52b. Biblical sources invoked are Deut. 13:16 (lefi lereb); Exod. 21:20(naqom yinnaqem) compared with Lev. 26:25 (hereb noqemet neqam berit); Deut. 21:4, 9(execution of murderer analogous to beheading of calf). We are clearly dealing with a postfactum justification of an imported practice.

16 ySanh. 24b (to 7:1 and 7:4): heneq let maskah leh. "/eneq cannot be found [inScripture]." bSanh. 53a top: "In accordance with the view of R. Josiah, how would one knowthat heneq is a penalty at all (mimmay de'ikka heneq ba'olam)?" On the views of modernscholars, see below.

17 To Exod. 21:15 (striking one's parents): Mekhilta, MiApatim ch. 4 (pp. 265-66). To Exod.21:16 (kidnapping): ibid. (p. 267). To Lev. 20:10 (adultery): Sifra, Qedosim pereq 9:11 (ed.Weiss, p. 92a); bSanh. 52b. I translate the baraita from bSanh. 52b.

A truncated and somewhat corrupt version of the baraita occurs in ySanh. 24b-c (to 7:4),and, in yet more abbreviated form, in ySanh. 24b (to 7: 1). Truncated: the baraita's opening(before 'amarta) is omitted, as is the utterance attributed to Rabbi (but see n. 20, below).Corrupt: the formula zo middah battorah, found in Mekhilta, is corrupted to hare zo mitahbattorah; R. Jonathan's utterance is interrupted by the dittography (from above) 'i 'attahraiay lehahamir 'aleha 'ella lehaqel 'aleha. The latter corruption is evidently early, for it alsoappears in the Gemara to 7:1, and is attested in a Genizah fragment (L. Ginzberg, Seride hayYerusalmi [1909, reprinted 1974], p. 258).

" The view that strangulation was the most lenient form of execution seems to have beenheld by the majority of Ushan scholars in the mid-second century. See mSanh. 7:1 and bothGemaras ad loc. (ySanh. 24b, bSanh. 49b-51b), mSanh. 9:3, tSanh. 12:5; cf. t'Arakh. 2:10.Cf. also J. N. Epstein, Mabo' leNusah hamMisnah (2nd ed., 1964), pp. 324-26. It is not clearhow much farther back this evaluation can be traced.

The formulation of this principle varies slightly among the sources. It is repeated inbSanh. 84b, 89a.

Page 5: Crucifixion, Nahum Pesher, Penalty of Strangulation*noahbickart.fastmail.fm/_JDST_232 /Halpern_Crucifiction.pdf · 2018-01-10 · Nahum 2:11-13 compares the "bloody city" of Nineveh

JOURNAL OF JEWISH STUDIES

applicability to a given crime. The effort at justification attributed to R.Judah the Patriarch (early third century) - evidently a comment on R.Jonathan's utterance20 - gives the impression of being a post factumrationalization of a principle whose original grounds were no longer under-stood. It is hardly surprising that the fourth-century Babylonian AmoraRava had to fall back on "tradition" as source for the complement of fourdeath penalties."2Modern scholars have wrestled with the problem of why an unheard of

form of execution was not only enrolled in the list of death penalties, butelevated to death penalty par excellence. The most attractive hypothesisremains the widespread view, championed by Adolf Buichler, that strangu-lation was introduced as a form of execution which would preserve thevictim's body intact for the resurrection. 22 This explanation is supported byR. Judah the Patriarch's commendation of strangulation as "a death thatleaves no mark"; and it can be argued that the procedures of stoning andburning were, for the same reason, amended so as to cause the minimum ofbodily disfigurement. 23 But it is precisely the last point that raises adifficulty; for if, as Buchler points out,24 "burning" was modified to thepoint that it was barely distinguishable from strangulation, what was theneed for so drastic an innovation as the invention of a new death penalty?Further, the modification of the penalties of stoning and burning can beexplained as efforts less to preserve the body intact than to minimize thevictim's pain;25 it thus seems to have occurred to no one to changedecapitation into some less disfiguring form of death by the sword (e.g.,cutting the victim's throat).26 Was, then, the urge to keep the body wholefor the resurrection as strong as this hypothesis must postulate?

Paul Winter vigorously repudiates the "resurrection" hypothesis, andproposes that the rabbis introduced strangulation after 70 A.D. as a devicefor carrying out secret executions, since the Romans no longer granted

20 So the Gemara in bSanh. 53a top: bislema lerabbi Yonatan kideqa mefares rabbi ta'ma.Not only is Rabbi's utterance obviously subsequent to the debate of R. Josiah and R. Jonathan- if the attributions are correct, which I see no reason to doubt - but it seems unlikely that itwas part of the baraita known to the redactor of ySanh. 24b-c. Admittedly, the baraita quotedin the Palestinian Talmud is abbreviated (above, n. 17). But the compiler's purpose (especiallyin the Gemara to mSanh. 7:1) was to demonstrate the Scriptural basis for the penalty ofstrangulation; he would surely have regarded Rabbi's utterance as the most important part ofthe baraita, and would not have omitted it had he known of its existence.

21 bSanh. 53a: 'arba' mitot gemara gemire leho.22 Buchler, "Die Todesstrafen," pp. 557-58, 683-86; and the assertions of Blinzler and

Daube quoted by Winter, On the Trial of Jesus, p. 189n24.23 Bichler, pp. 557-58, 686-91.

Ibid., pp. 685-86.Ibid., p. 557.

26 Cf. the sources cited above, nn. 14-15.

36

Page 6: Crucifixion, Nahum Pesher, Penalty of Strangulation*noahbickart.fastmail.fm/_JDST_232 /Halpern_Crucifiction.pdf · 2018-01-10 · Nahum 2:11-13 compares the "bloody city" of Nineveh

CRUCIFIXION, THE NAHUM PESHER, AND STRANGULATION

Jewish authorities the right to execute capital sentences. 27 This suggestion issupported by no positive evidence and is open to several objections. Mostimportant, it is very hard to see why the rabbinic sources represent strangu-lation as existing side by side with the other methods of execution, not asreplacing them. It is also embarrassing that the crimes punishable bystrangulation (mSanh. 11:1) include the zaqen mamre' 'al pi bet din, anoffence which lost its meaning after the destruction of the Temple;28 andthat a baraita asserts that, after the destruction of the Temple, all fourdeath penalties were no longer executed by the Sanhedrin, but carried outby the Deity in the form of different types of accidents.29

Buchler was himself evidently not wholly satisfied with the"resurrection" hypothesis, for he suggests at one point that strangulationmay go back to a punishment of "hanging" (by the neck), which he sharplydistinguishes from crucifixion. 30

I think that Biichler was on the way to the correct solution, but erred inseparating strangulation from crucifixion. Some link between the two maybe inferred from the Targum to Ruth 1:17, which enumerates the fourmodes of capital punishment, but lists "crucifixion" (selibat qesa) in theplace normally occupied by strangulation." Yosef Heinemann pointed outthat the Targum's list is not likely to have been formulated after theMishnah's enumeration of penalties had become "canonical," andtherefore antedates it.32 The Mishnah's "strangulation" thus seems to havereplaced crucifixion.

Joseph M. Baumgarten infers from the correspondence of $elibat qesaand heneq that the former does not refer to crucifixion but to "hanging" inthe modern sense of the word.33 But the root ,slb refers specifically tocrucifixion, not only in other Aramaic dialects (Syriac, Mandaic, Christian

2 Winter, On the Trial of Jesus, pp. 70-74.Deut. 17:8-13, mSanh. 11:2, and note the exegesis of Deut. 17:9 in a baraita in bSanh.

52b.2 bKet. 30a, bSot. 8b, bSanh. 37b.

' Buichler, "Die Todesstrafen," p. 703. A similar view seems to be implied in the remarksof E. E. Urbach, "Batte Din gel 'Egrim uSelogah weDine Mitot Bet-Din," Proceedings of theFifth World Congress of Jewish Studies, 11 (1972), Hebrew section, pp. 45-46.

31 E. Levine, The Aramaic Version of Ruth (1973), p. 23: 'it lana 'arba' mine motalel,ayyabayya regimat 'abnin wiqedat nura uqefilat seyafa uselibat qesa.

32 Y. Heinemann, "Targum Semot 22:4 wehaHalakhah haqQedumah," Tarbiz 38(1968-69), pp. 294-96; cf. Levine, Aramaic Version of Ruth, pp. 6-8, 60-62. The parallelpassage in Midrash Ruth Rabbah (2:24) replaces felibat qesa by heneq, in conformity with theMishnah; similarly, ms De Rossi 31 of the Targum alters to 4aniqat sudara (S. Speier,

'Uselibat Qesa,' Targum Rut 1:17," Tarbiz 40 [1970-71], p. 259).3 Baumgarten, "Does tlh in the Temple Scroll Refer to Crucifixion?" pp. 473-76; cf.

Urbach, "Batte Din," pp. 44-45.

37

Page 7: Crucifixion, Nahum Pesher, Penalty of Strangulation*noahbickart.fastmail.fm/_JDST_232 /Halpern_Crucifiction.pdf · 2018-01-10 · Nahum 2:11-13 compares the "bloody city" of Nineveh

38 JOURNAL OF JEWISH STUDIES

Palestinian Aramaic),34 but in rabbinic Hebrew as well.35 Targumic usage ismore complex but points in the same direction. Baumgarten is right that"slb is the normal targumic rendering for biblical tlh," but only when tihrefers to the penal suspension of humans, living or dead, by otherhumans.36 Where the Bible speaks of the suspension of objects, or theaccidental suspension of humans (Absalom), the Targums render talah by

34 Syriac: C. Brockelmann, Lexicon Syriacum (1895), p. 303. Mandaic: E. S. Drower and R.Macuch, A Mandaic Dictionary (1963), pp. 387, 395. Christian Palestinian Aramaic: F.Schulthess, Lexicon Syropalaestinum (1903), pp. 171-72. With s.elibat qesa, compare theexpression qeseh daseliba, used in Christian Palestinian Aramaic for Jesus' cross (F.Schulthess, Christlich-Paltstinische Fragmente aus der Omajjaden-Moschee zu Damaskus[1905], p. 126; M. Black, A Christian Palestinian Syriac Horologion [1954], p. 118).

In the absence of concordances to the Palestinian Talmud and the contemporaryPalestinian midrashim, it would be hazardous to generalize about the use of flb in JewishPalestinian Aramaic. Genesis Rabbah's account of how Jose b. Joezer "walked before thebeam, going lemi,s(alebah" (65:22; ed. Theodor-Albeck, pp. 742-43) can hardly refer to any-thing but crucifixion; cf. Mekhilta, BaH!odes ch. 6 (p. 227). On Simeon b. Shetah's ,eliba ofthe witches, see below.

The Aramaic of the Babylonian Talmud uses zeqaf for crucifixion instead of selab; theformer verb is also more common in the Peshitta (G. Dalman, Jesus-Jeshua [Eng. trans.,1929], p. 187).

I have been unable to get a clear picture of the use of sib in Samaritan Aramaic. This rootis used uniformly in the Samaritan Targum to translate talah, even in Deut. 28:66, where theverb is applied metaphorically to the exile's life (Jewish Targums translate with tly). In themedieval Samaritan Hebrew-Arabic-Aramaic dictionary known as hamMeli, Aramaic selab isrendered by Arabic salaba, "to crucify" (Z. Ben-Hayyim, 'Ibrit wa'Aramit NusaiU Somron, 11[1957], p. 609; cf. p. 474); seliba is apparently used for the Christian cross (ibid., p. 597), andSamaritan Hebrew (?) miflaleb for Christ (A. F. von Gall, Der hebrdische Pentateuch derSamaritaner [19181, p. 11).

Arabic salaba is apparently an Aramaic loan-word; see A. Jeffery, The ForeignVocabulary of the Qur'an (1938), p. 197.

3S The usage is entirely unambiguous in certain passages: m Yeb. 16:3, t Yeb. 14:4, y Yeb. 15cbottom, bYeb. 120b (a man seen crucified is not necessarily assumed dead, because, as thePalestinian Talmud explains, a matrona might have ransomed him); cf. S. Lieberman, ToseftaKi-fshufah, VI (1967), p. 173. tGitt. 5(7):1, yGitt. 48c, bGitt. 70b (a crucified man can directthat a bill of divorce be given to his wife). mShabb. 6:10, bShabb. 67a (use of the nail of a

crucified man as an amulet). mOhal. 3:5, tOhal. 4:11, bNidd. 71b (the dripping blood of a mancrucified on a beam, 'al ha'ej). See also the passages cited by Dalman, Jesus-Jeshua, pp.187-92.

36 Gen. 40:19, 22, 41:13; Deut. 21:22-23; Josh. 8:29, 10:26; II Sam. 4:12, 21:12 (cf. Targ. ISam. 31:10); Lam. 5:12; Esth. 2:23, 5:14, 6:4, 7:9, 10, 8:7, 9:14, 25; cf. Esth. 9:13. Post-mortem suspension is clearly intended in Genesis, li Samuel, Josh. 10:26, and evidently alsoEsth. 9:13-14 (see v. 12); the other Esther passages seem to understand "suspension" as theexecution itself; Josh. 8:29 and Lam. 5:12 admit either interpretation; and Deut. 21:22-23 is acrux to which we must return.

There seem to have been several forms of the text of the Esther Targum, and, until the mssare classified and a critical edition attempted, we cannot intelligently discuss the variations; seeM. Goshen-Gottstein, "The 'Third Targum' on Esther and Ms. Neofiti I," Biblica 56 (1975),pp. 301-29. Some published versions of the Targums use zqf or tly, in place of fib, to translatetalah in one or another of the passages: "Second Targum," and the Targum ms published byA. Sperber (The Bible in Aramaic, IVA [1968], pp. 171-205), to 2:23; Sperber's Targum to 6:4;"Second Targum" to 7: 10; "First Targum" and Sperber's Targum to 9:13. The use of zqfandtly may reflect Eastern Aramaic influence on the language of the Targum: Peshitta uses theformer root in 2:23 and the latter in the rest of the book; cf. above, n. 34.

Page 8: Crucifixion, Nahum Pesher, Penalty of Strangulation*noahbickart.fastmail.fm/_JDST_232 /Halpern_Crucifiction.pdf · 2018-01-10 · Nahum 2:11-13 compares the "bloody city" of Nineveh

CRUCIFIXION, THE NAHUM PESHER, AND STRANGULATION 39

tela. " The Palestinian Targums express the mysterious form of executionprescribed in Numbers 25:4 (wehoqa' 'otam) with slb,35 while Sifre ad loc.paraphrases wihyu solebim 'et hahatta'im;39 the Targumic use of selab heretherefore corresponds to rabbinic Hebrew salab, and refers to crucifixion. 40The long haggadic additions to the Targums to Esther plainly intendcrucifixion by the seliba that Haman planned for Mordecai and sufferedhimself."4 One gathers that the primary meaning of Targumic selab - themeaning that surfaces when the writers are composing freely and withoutthe restrictions imposed by the Hebrew text - is crucifixion. Since, inrabbinic Hebrew, talah may occasionally replace salab as a term for

" Deut. 28:66; II Sam. 18:10; Ezek. 15:3, 27:10, Il;Ps. 137:2. Targ. Job 26:7 renders talahby zeqaf. The Targums to Isa. 22:24, Hos. 11:7, Cant. 4:4 interpret rather than translate theHebrew.

38 Neofiti 1: yi4lebun yateh 'al seliba. Ps.-Jon.: weti,slob yathon . . .'al qesa. Fragment-Targum: wihawyan falebin. The three Palestinian Targums do not use the same language, butshare the same exegetical traditions: apart from their rendering of hoqa, all understand qab 'etkol rage ha'am as a command to convene a court, and see neged hassames as an allusion to thelaw of Deut. 21:23. By contrast, Onkelos contains nothing of the last point, only a faint traceof the second, and translates hoqa' with the colorless qetol.

Sifre Numb. §131 (ed. Horovitz, p. 172).40 It was perhaps embarrassment at the idea of formally constituted Jewish courts ordering

crucifixions that led Onkelos to take refuge in the vague rendering qetol (above, n. 38); forTargum Jonathan translates hoqia' with jib in 11 Sam. 21:6, 9, 13.

4 The passages are as follows: (1) "First Targum" and Sperber's Targum (p. 194) to Esth.5:14: Haman enlists carpenters to make Mordecai's peliba, smiths to make the nails. (The textprinted in the Miqra'ot Gedolot reads sakkin defarzel, "iron knife," which makes little sensein the context; Sperber's ms has minin defarzel, "types of iron." We should undoubtedly readsikkin defarzel, "iron nails." Cf. Esther Rabbah 10:5 [to Esth. 6:11]: 'ani hayiti metaqqenlakh habalim umasmerim.) The preceding discussion, a shorter form of which occurs in the"Second Targum," assumes that seliba is a form of execution; and the "Second Targum"asserts that, before Mordecai, no Jew has been exposed to selibat qesa (N.B.!) and survived.Cf. Esther Rabbah 10:5. (On the relation of the "First" and "Second" Targums to 5:14, cf. P.Grelot, "Observations sur les targums I et III d'Esther," Biblica 56 11975], pp. 58-59.) (2)"Second Targum" and Sperber's Targum (pp. 198-99) to 7:9: Ahasuerus orders Mordecai totake Haman uselob yateh 'al feliba . . wedun yateh dinin bisin; presumably, crucify andtorture him. (3) Ibid.: bar hammedata ba'e missuq le'akhsandarya debar pandira, "the son ofHammedatha wants to climb the mast of Bar Pandira," i.e., Jesus. (Sperber's Targum readsbar pandora. On "Ben Pandira" or "Ben Pantera" as an epithet for Jesus, see R. T. Herford,Christianity in Talmud and Midrash [1903], pp. 35-40; D. Rokeah, "Ben Slara Ben PanteraHu'," Tarbiz 39 [1969-70], pp. 9-18. I owe the latter reference to my friend Menachem Mor.)(4) "Second Targum" and Sperber's Targum (pp. 203-04) to 9:14: Mordecai addresses Hamanhanging on the feliba. (5) "Second Targum" and Sperber's Targum (p. 204) to 9:24: The felibaof Haman and his sons is equated with the execution of Saul's offspring (II Sam. 21:1-14); thepassage evidently represents a development of the midrash on II Sam. 21:10 found in bYeb.79a and parallels.

The dating of the Targum to Esther in its several forms is, like that of Targumic literaturein general, very uncertain, and most scholars have placed it after the Talmudic period; see Y.Komlosch, "Targum Sheni," Encyclopedia Judaica (1971), XV, cols. 811-13. The materialrelating to seliba, however, presupposes the Roman practice of the second and third centuriesA.D.: crucifixion is the standard death penalty for the humbler classes, beheading with thesword for "the great ones of the state" ("Second Targum" and Sperber's Targum to 7:9; seebelow, n. 54). I do not know of any subsequent period that would suit this allusion so well;crucifixion was discontinued in the Roman Empire during Constantine's reign, and, while itseems to have been used in Islam as a punishment for certain forms of highway robbery (J.

Page 9: Crucifixion, Nahum Pesher, Penalty of Strangulation*noahbickart.fastmail.fm/_JDST_232 /Halpern_Crucifiction.pdf · 2018-01-10 · Nahum 2:11-13 compares the "bloody city" of Nineveh

40 JOURNAL OF JEWISH STUDIES

crucifixion,42 the translators assumed that the Bible's use of talah as a formof punishment referred to crucifixion or something resembling it. Themeaning of selab was thus extended to post-mortem suspension, under theconstraint of the plain meaning of the Biblical text. " There is no evidencethat the verb is ever used for hanging by the neck. In Targ. Ruth 1:17, wherea form of execution is obviously designated, the burden of proof restsheavily upon the scholar who would see in selibat qesa anything other thancrucifixion.Our observations on the Nahum Pesher permit a better explanation of the

relation of selibat qesa to heneq. Jews borrowed the practice of crucifixionfrom the Romans, and, as we shall see, "naturalized" it into Jewish law byinvoking Deuteronomy 21:22-23, which prescribes the "suspension" ofcriminals.44 Crucifixion was perceived as a prolonged and agonizing formof strangulation, heneq, and was at some point drastically modified into thequick and relatively humane form of strangulation prescribed by theMishnah.

Exactly parallel modification may be traced in the Mishnaic penalties of

Schacht, Introduction to Islamic Law [1964], pp. 180-81) and evidently also for apostasy (C.Brockelmann, History of the Islamic Peoples [Eng. trans., 1960], p. 130), I know of noevidence that it was widespread or associated with a specific social class. Further, theassumption that Haman was crucified, and the mocking comparison of his death with that ofJesus (above), are attested for the Jews of the Eastern Roman Empire at the beginning of thefifth century (evidence in J. Juster, Les Juifs dans l'Empire Romain, 11 [19141, pp. 204,207-08), and may well be earlier. Whatever the date of the compilation of the Esther Targum,therefore, the material with which we are concerned seems to go back to the Talmudic period,and I think it proper to invoke its use of flb as evidence for the meaning of selibat qesa in Targ.Ruth 1:17. Note, however, that the Esther Targum ("Second Targum" and Sperber's Targumto 7:9) - like the bulk of the rabbinic literature, and unlike the Ruth Targum - assumes thatcrucifixion is a non-Jewish method of punishment (kema delet bekhon qetule nefas).

4 Compare tSanh. 9:7 (sib) with its parallel in bSanh. 46b (tlh).4 "Crucifixion" of corpses is known also from Roman practice (Hengel, Crucifixion, p.

43n9; cf. pp. 41n6, 80).44 Scholars familiar with rabbinic invective against the "wicked kingdom" of Rome some-

times forget that, to judge from I Macc. 8:1-16, the initial Jewish response to the Romans andtheir culture was one of enthusiastic admiration. It is not hard to imagine that some Jewsduring the Hasmonean period regarded such Roman practices as crucifixion as the acme of"civilization," and thus were prepared not only to adopt them but also to search the Scripturesfor proof that they were authentically Jewish. The rabbinic sources that "Judaize" the Romanpenalty of decapitation (above, nn. 14-15) provide a useful parallel. Even Amoraic penalconceptions may have been influenced by Roman jurisprudence: the petilah thrown into themouth of the victim of burning (mSanh. 7:2) is understood in both Talmuds to refer to moltentin or lead (ySanh. 24b, bSanh. 52a), perhaps under the influence of a Roman refinement onthe punishment of burning, in which the offending organs - the culprit's mouth and throat -are punished "by ingestion of molten lead." (Codex Theodosianus, 9,24,1; ed. Mommsen,Theodosiani Libri XVI. . ., 1.2 [19051, pp. 476-77: ut eis meatus oris etfaucium, qui nefariahortamenta protulerit, liquentis plumbi ingestione claudatur. The ruling is attributed toConstantine but may be an older traditional practice here given legal recognition). There istherefore nothing implausible about the suggestion that Jews borrowed Roman practices ofexecution at an earlier period, before the friendly relations between the two peoples soured.

Page 10: Crucifixion, Nahum Pesher, Penalty of Strangulation*noahbickart.fastmail.fm/_JDST_232 /Halpern_Crucifiction.pdf · 2018-01-10 · Nahum 2:11-13 compares the "bloody city" of Nineveh

CRUCIFIXION, THE NAHUM PESHER, AND STRANGULATION 41

"burning" and "stoning." Within the memory of the early Yavnean TannaEleazar b. Zadok (ca. 100 A.D.), "burning" was still carried out bysurrounding the victim with bundles of branches and setting them on fire."4But, in Mishnaic law (mSanh. 7:2), "burning" consists of forcing open thevictim's mouth and throwing in some sort of burning object (petilah; cf. n.44), which "descends to his internal organs and burns them up." The victimof "stoning," originally pelted to death with a shower of rocks (cf. John8:7),46 is, in rabbinic jurisprudence, precipitated from a raised platform;only if he survives his fall is he killed by stones piled on his chest (mSanh.6:4). In both cases, the immediate cause of death is preserved as a relic ofthe traditional mode of execution,47 but the process is altered almostbeyond recognition, and the individual's suffering thereby considerablyshortened. 45We may also find an analogy in Roman law: "under the influence of

Christianity, which saw in the cross its symbol, crucifixion was abolished inthe later years of Constantine and replaced by public strangling on thegallows. " 49The rabbinic assignments of the diverse capital crimes to one or another

of the four penalties are plainly based on Scriptural exegesis, and are some-

" mSanh. 7:2: hiqqifuha habile zemorot uS.erafuha. The baraita quoted in ySanh. 24b,bSanh. 52b, which represents this as a childhood observation of R. Eleazar b. Zadok, ispresumably a different version of the Mishnah's statement, although the Babylonian Gemaraunderstands Mishnah and baraita as referring to two distinct incidents. In the Mishnah, R.Eleazar's colleagues respond to his observation by claiming that "the court of that time wasnot competent" (lo' hayah . . .baqi') and therefore deviated from the approved method ofburning; the Babylonian Amora Rab Joseph explains that "it was a Sadducee court" (bSanh.52b). But, if such was the Mishnah's intent, why does it not say explicitly that the court wasSadducee? The Mishnah's language implies that the Tannaim recognized the court asbelonging to a group to which they might look for precedents (the Pharisees, presumably);only, in this case, it happened to be incompetent. The rabbis seem therefore to recognise andyet evade the fact that their method of burning differed radically from that of theirpredecessors.

With the burning reported by R. Eleazar, cf. Josephus, Antiquities, IV, 248 (the victim is"burnt alive," kaiestho zosa); bSanh. 52b (the otherwise unknown Rab Hama b. Tobiah has apriest's daughter surrounded by bundles of branches and burnt); and Bitchler's discussion,"Die Todesstrafen," p. 549. On this mode of burning among the Romans, see Mommsen,Romisches Strafrecht, p. 923.

4 J. Blinzler, "The Jewish Punishment of Stoning in the New Testament Period," in E.Bammel, The Trial of Jesus, pp. 147-61.

41 Cf. tSanh. 9:6: R. Simeon asserts that a heavy stone is placed on the individual's chest -even if he has already died from his fall, apparently - "in order thereby to uphold thecommandment of stoning" (kede leqayyem bah miywat seqilah).

4S Urbach ("Batte Din," pp. 45-46) holds that the Mishnaic method of burning was a localcustom that existed in Second Temple times side by side with the more conventional modedescribed by R. Eleazar b. Zadok. But the former is so unlike the image conveyed by theScriptural ba'es tissaref that it is difficult to imagine it arising except as a deliberate reinter-pretation of the Biblical prescription, and I see no reason to assume that this reinterpretationsignificantly antedates the Tannaim.

" Mommsen, Romisches Strafrecht, p. 921; cf. M. Hengel, Crucifixion, p. 29.

Page 11: Crucifixion, Nahum Pesher, Penalty of Strangulation*noahbickart.fastmail.fm/_JDST_232 /Halpern_Crucifiction.pdf · 2018-01-10 · Nahum 2:11-13 compares the "bloody city" of Nineveh

42 JOURNAL OF JEWISH STUDIES

times disputed among the rabbis themselves. 5 It would therefore bepointless to compare the Mishnah's list of crimes punishable bystrangulation (mSanh. 11:1) - which include such distinctively Biblicalmisdeeds as false prophecy, prophecy in the name of idol-worship, and "theelder who disregards the opinion of the court" (Deuteronomy 17:12) -with those punished by crucifixion under Roman law.5' But it may besignificant that the rabbinic sources, while normally assuming that the onehalakhic death penalty for Gentiles is decapitation, record a divergentopinion that it is strangulation. 52 In Roman judicial practice under the earlyEmpire, decapitation was the normal form of execution for the upperclasses (honestiores), while the lower classes (humiliores) were subject to"aggravated forms of the death penalty," usually crucifixion.53 The Jews

5 I give three examples: (1) The "prophet who leads astray" is variously said to be stoned(mSanh. 7:4), strangled (R. Simeon, in tSanh. 11:5), or beheaded (Targ. Ps.-Jon. to Deut.13:6). Cf. Sifre Deut. §86 (ed. Finkelstein, p. 151); bSanh. 50b, 67a, 84a, and especially 89b,where the Gemara attempts to reconstruct the exegetical reasoning of R. Simeon and "therabbis." (2) A non-priest who serves in the Temple is to be strangled (R. Akiba, in mSanh. 9:6;R. Johanan b. Nuri, in Sifre Numb. §116 (p. 1341 and a baraita quoted in bSanh. 84a), stoned(R. Ishmael, in Sifre Numb. §116; R. Akiba, in bSanh, 84a), or left to execution by Divineagency ("the scholars," in mSanh. 9:6; R. Ishmael, in bSanh. 84a). All scholars cited in Sifreand bSanh. 84a support their views with Scriptural gezerot sawot; cf. ySanh. 27a. (3) Asorcerer is to be stoned (mSanh. 7:4, 11; R. Judah [b. Bathyra?] and other Tannaim, theirnames variously reported; in Mekhilta, Mispatim ch. 17 [pp. 309-10], ySanh. 25d, and abaraita quoted in bSanh. 67a-b), decapitated (R. Ishmael, in Mekhilta, loc. cit.; R. Akiba and"the rabbis," in ySanh. 25d; R. Jose the Galilean, in bSanh. 67a-b), or crucified (the story ofSimeon b. Shetah and the witches; see below). The scholars who argue for stoning arerepresented as disputing which of several exegetical methods can be used to establish thisposition (Mekhilta, ySanh. 25d, bSanh. 67a-b). These instances suggest considerableuncertainty over what the "normative" view was, and even over which opinion was held bywhich authority. Cf. Bitchler, "Die Todesstrafen," pp. 676-78; Urbach, "Batte Din", p. 44and n. 29.

" Mommsen, Romisches Strafrecht, p. 1045; Hengel, Crucifixion, p. 34.52 Decapitation: Baraita quoted in bSanh. 56a (kol mitah ha'amurah bibene noa#, 'enah

'ella besayif); Sifra, 'Emor pereq 19:4 (ed. Weiss, p. 104d). This principle is assumed by thesugyot of bSanh. 57b (Rashi, s.v. ba' 'al ne'arah me'orasah), 67a-b (Rashi to 67b, s.v.mitah'ahat, 71 b; cf. Rashi to bYoma 66b, s. v. zibbeah weqit er). The anonymous Gemara inyQidd. 58c (top) asserts that the process of execution for Gentiles is be'ed 'ehad ubedayyan'eIUad wesello' behatrayah ubesayif, the parallel in Genesis Rabbah 34:14 (ed. Theodor-Albeck, pp. 325-26), however, omits besayif. yNaz. 55d: yese' zeh [goyl semmitato besayif. Iknow of no attempt to provide exegetical support for the view that Gentile offenders are to bedecapitated, although it could perhaps be inferred from damo yisafekh in Gen. 9:6; cf.Mekhilta, Mispatim ch. 4 (pp. 261-62).

Strangulation: The Babylonian Gemara attributes to "the school of Manasseh" the viewthat strangulation is the form of execution used for Gentiles (kol mitah ha'amurah libene noat'eno [!] 'ella heneq; bSanh. 57b [twice], 71b). In connection with-the first of these passages, theGemara asserts that the position of "the school of Manasseh" is based on Gen. 9:6, ba'adamdamo yisafekh: bloodshed in which the blood remains inside the individual's body. Thisexegesis is surely very forced. A similar view is attributed to R. Judah b. Simon b. Pazzi inyQidd. 58c, Genesis Rabbah 34:14, commenting on Gen. 9:6; but the text of both passages isevidentlycorrupt.Qorban ha'Edahemendsthe Talmud's117z3DnZ 1plnn tol2Y1 "19)7315aand Theodor (p. 326) proposes a similar emendation of the midrash sVl231 D72 ilflfn .

53 Garnsey, "Legal Privilege in the Roman Empire," p. 13, cf. pp. 20, 23n82; Hengel,Crucifixion, pp. 34-35, cf. pp. 51-63.

Page 12: Crucifixion, Nahum Pesher, Penalty of Strangulation*noahbickart.fastmail.fm/_JDST_232 /Halpern_Crucifiction.pdf · 2018-01-10 · Nahum 2:11-13 compares the "bloody city" of Nineveh

CRUCIFIXION, THE NAHUM PESHER, AND STRANGULATION

seem to have been familiar with the social implications of these two formsof execution; for, in a Targumic addition to Esther 7:9, Haman begsMordecai not to have him crucified, like ordinary people (gabrin hedyo(in),but "beheaded with the king's sword, by which all the great ones of thestate (rabrebane medinta) are executed."54 If we assume some equation ofcrucifixion and strangulation, the uncertainty concerning the normativeform of Gentile execution may ultimately rest on the question of whichGentile social class is to be used as the standard.We may suppose that the Jewish groups that borrowed crucifixion from

the Romans employed as Scriptural warrant Deuteronomy 21:22-23: "If aman commit a sin deserving of death, and he be executed, and you suspendhim on a tree, his corpse shall not remain on the tree overnight, but youshall surely bury him on that same day . . ." So we may infer from amidrash on these verses found in the newly published Qumran TempleScroll:55 evidently understanding the waw of (wehumat) wetalita (v. 22) asexplicative rather than consecutive,56 the Temple Scroll paraphrases: "andyou shall suspend him on a tree, that he die." If certain Jews did indeed seein the Deuteronomic passage a prescription of crucifixion, the generallanguage of its opening - "a sin deserving of death" - could easily implythat crucifixion was to be the method of execution wherever such was notexplicitly specified by the Torah. The Roman use of crucifixion for amultitude of offences would have encouraged such an interpretation. Wehave here, I propose, the origin of the principle - repeated as a traditionlong after its grounds had been forgotten - that "any death penaltyprescribed by the Torah without specification is necessarilystrangulation."5

5"'Second Targum" and Sperber's Targum (p. 199) to 7:9.55 Yadin, "Pesher Nahum . . . Reconsidered," pp. 5-9; idem, Megillat hamMiqdas, 1, pp.

285-90, 11, pp. 202-04.56 Levine, Aramaic Version ofRuth, p. 60n7. The rabbinic exegesis of this verse (below), of

course, demands that the waw be taken as consecutive. It is not necessary to assume that theauthor of the Temple Scroll followed a Biblical text that reversed the sequence of the verbs,although this possibility cannot be ruled out. The Temple Scroll's exegesis - or textual reading- is shared by Peshitta ad loc. (wenezdeqaf 'al qaysa wenettaqlal; see M. Wilcox, " 'Upon theTree' - Deut. 21:22-23 in the New Testament," JBL 96 [1977], p. 90) and certain LXX mss(L. Rosso, "Deuteronomio 21,22 Contributo del Rotolo del Tempio Alla Valutazione di unaVariante Medievale dei Settanta", RdQ9 [1977], pp. 231-36; I thank Marc Bregman for thisreference, and my friend and student Alice Tropman for her help with the Italian). A LXXtradition along these lines may be attested by Philo, Special Laws, III, 150-52, which evidentlyunderstands Deut. 21:22-23 to prescribe the crucifixion (anaskolopizesthai) of murderers; seeColson's note ad loc. in the Loeb Philo, VII (1937), p. 571.

5 Cf. Urbach, "Batte Din," p. 45: in certain localities, it was the practice to hang trans-gressors "whose mode of execution was not spelled out by the Torah"; the practice foundsupport in Deut. 21:22; and "this hanging was called strangulation."

43

Page 13: Crucifixion, Nahum Pesher, Penalty of Strangulation*noahbickart.fastmail.fm/_JDST_232 /Halpern_Crucifiction.pdf · 2018-01-10 · Nahum 2:11-13 compares the "bloody city" of Nineveh

JOURNAL OF JEWISH STUDIES

IIIThe rabbinic exegesis of Deuteronomy 21:22-23 is entirely dissociated

from strangulation. The rabbis, probably correctly, understand the text toprescribe the suspension of a corpse; the word sequence wehumat wetalita,we are told, excludes the view that "they hang him and afterwards kill him,as does the [Roman] government."58 Suspension is to follow execution bystoning, according to R. Eliezer; while the majority view restricts it to thestoning of a blasphemer or idolater (mSanh. 6:4). Yet certain features of"suspension," as prescribed in rabbinic sources, strongly suggest that it isnot based solely on the Biblical command, but derives, like strangulation,from a discarded practice of crucifixion.Deuteronomy's word 'es, normally translated "tree," can be used for any

wooden object.59 Remarkably, the rabbis insist that it does not mean"tree," but a post (qorah) fixed in the ground, from which a wooden piece('es) protrudes. The dissenting opinion attributed to R. Jose holds that thepost is to lean against a wall; but no one questions that Scripture intends apost and not a real tree (mSanh. 6:4). A baraita defends this specificationwith a midrash of qabor tiqberennu, "you shall surely bury him"(Deuteronomy 21:23):

'E~. I might understand, Whether it is uprooted or whether it is rooted (benbetalus ben bimehubbar). Therefore Scripture says, ki qabor [tiqberennu]:that which requires only burial, excluding that which requires both felling andburial. 60

The repetition of the root qbr is held to imply that the 'es is also to beburied, and that its burial is to be parallel to that of the man. This exegesis isso forced that it can hardly be other than a post factum justification of anestablished practice. The body suspended from a post, with or without acrossbar (the projecting piece of wood may correspond to the crossbar),suggests crucifixion.6' The suggestion becomes stronger when we observe

56 Baraita in bSanh. 46b; a shorter and less explicit form of the baraita occurs in Sifre Deut.§221 (p. 254).

5 Lexica of BDB and Jastrow, s.v.60 bSanh. 46b. Sifre Deut. §221: "Scripture says, ki qabor tiqberennu: an 'e, that is buried

with him; i.e., one that is uprooted, and not one that is rooted." The continuation of theTalmud's baraita, which provides the exegetical basis of R. Jose's view, is missing from SifreDeut., and may be an addition of the Babylonian redactors (as are surely the concluding wordswerabbanan telisah law kelum hi').

61 On the "cross" as a simple upright post, without a crossbar, see: H. F. Hitzig, art."Crux," Pauly-Wissowa Real-Encyclopddie der Classischen Altertumswissenschaft, IV(1901), col. 1730; Blinzler, Der Prozess Jesu, pp. 375-76. The precise form that crucifixiontook could vary considerably (Hengel, Crucifixion, p. 25), and it is probably futile to seek asingle "standard" method with which the rabbis would have been familiar. The remains of thecrucified man found at Giv'at ha-Mivtar, Jerusalem, presumably attest only one of theoptions. See N. Haas, "Anthropological Observations on the Skeletal Remains from Giv'atha-Mivtar," IEJ20(1970), pp. 38-59; Y. Yadin, "Epigraphy and Crucifixion," IEJ23 (1973),pp. 18-22.

44

Page 14: Crucifixion, Nahum Pesher, Penalty of Strangulation*noahbickart.fastmail.fm/_JDST_232 /Halpern_Crucifiction.pdf · 2018-01-10 · Nahum 2:11-13 compares the "bloody city" of Nineveh

CRUCIFIXION, THE NAHUM PESHER, AND STRANGULATION

that the rabbis prescribe that the corpse is to be suspended naked - as isthe victim of crucifixion.62The rabbinic tradition preserves a few memories of a time when the

"post" was itself an instrument of death. Several baraitot list, amonginstruments of execution, "the post ('es) on which [the criminal] issuspended."63 A midrash quoted in the Palestinian Talmud states thatGentile blasphemers are executed by decapitation, Jewish blasphemers bysuspension (mitatan biteliyyah).64 An Aramaic story, preserved in twoslightly differing versions in the Palestinian Talmud, describes the cru-cifixion (seliba) of eighty witches by Simeon b. Shetah, a shadowy figurefrom the legendary past of the rabbinic movement.65 mSanh. 6:4 shows thatthe second-century Tannaim regarded Simeon's action as post-mortemsuspension, but this is surely a reinterpretation of the tradition found in theAramaic story, whose apparent ignorance of the Mishnaic norms points toits antiquity.66 In analogous fashion, a baraita in the Babylonian Talmud(bSanh. 43a) represents the crucifixion of Jesus as suspension followingexecution by stoning. 67mSanh. 6:4 rules that the suspended corpse "is to be let down

immediately." A baraita adds: "One man ties while another releases, in

62 bSanh. 46a, Si reDeut. §221: 'oto (Deut. 21:22) is understood to exclude clothing. Since,according to mSanh. 6:3, the victim is to be naked during the preceding execution by stoning,the emphasis on his being naked during the suspension may suggest that particular significancewas attached to this detail (cf. Tosafot to bSanh. 46a, s.v. 'oto). On the Roman practice, seeHitzig, loc. cit. (above, n. 61); Blinzler, Der Prozess Jesu, p. 360.

63 tSanh. 9:8: "The sword (sayif) with which he is executed, the cloth (sudar) with which heis strangled, the stone ('eben) with which he is stoned, and the post ('ep) on which he issuspended, require immersion and are not buried with him." bSanh. 45b: a distinct (andcontradictory) baraita emDlovs the stereotvDic list of implements, in the order'eben . . 'es . sayif . . sudar; so a third baraita (evidently) quoted by Rab Huna inbSanh. 43a. A midrash quoted in yNaz. 55d (to 7: 1) initially lists only sayif . . 'es . . sudar,but, at its conclusion, 'eso . . . 'abno.

6 yNaz. 55d: 'elu seinmitatan biteliyyah yese' zeh semmitato besayif (Gentiles are thusexcluded from the obligation of met miswah). The midrash does not fit very smoothly in itspresent context, and is presumably an older source here invoked.

65 ySanh. 23c: the witches, deprived of their supernatural powers, are one by one carried offto crucifixion (seliba). yHag. 78a summarizes: "They lifted them up and went and crucifiedthem" (u(e'anunon wa'azalun uselabunon). These and the other rabbinic traditions concerningSimeon b. Shetah are collected by J. Neusner, The Rabbinic Traditions About the PhariseesBefore 70 (1971), 1, pp. 86-141. Sorcery was punished by crucifixion in Roman law (sourcescited above, n. 51); on the crucifixion of women, see Hengel, Crucifixion, pp. 60, 74, 81 (butcf. also Mommsen, Romisches Strafrecht, p. 928). On the punishment of the sorcerer inrabbinic law, cf. above, n. 50.

66 Against Winter, On the Trial of Jesus, pp. 63-64; Neusner, Rabbinic Traditions, 1, pp.90, 103, 132-33. Winter entirely ignores the tradition in the Palestinian Talmud; Neusnerconsiders it a later development of the Mishnaic account (found also in Sifre Deut. §221),originating in the third or fourth century. Cf. Urbach, "Batte Din", p. 44; Schurer-Vermes-Millar, History of the Jewish People, 1. p. 231.

67 See J. Z. Lauterbach, Rabbinic Essays (1951), pp. 494-96.

45

Page 15: Crucifixion, Nahum Pesher, Penalty of Strangulation*noahbickart.fastmail.fm/_JDST_232 /Halpern_Crucifiction.pdf · 2018-01-10 · Nahum 2:11-13 compares the "bloody city" of Nineveh

JOURNAL OF JEWISH STUDIES

order to uphold the commandment of suspension (mi4wat teliyyah). "6' Thecommandment is thus to be fulfilled only symbolically, and only for aninstant; it must be performed at sunset, so that it cannot be prolongedwithout violating Deuteronomy 21:23.69 We get the impression of a practicetoo deeply imbedded in rabbinic tradition to be discarded, and yet inspiringsuch aversion that only a symbolic performance of it is permitted. 7

IV

Yigael Yadin proposed, on the basis of the Temple Scroll, that theTalmud's repudiation of crucifixion be seen as a polemic against theapproval of crucifixion by other Jewish groups.7' I would go further, andhold that it is directed against acceptance of crucifixion at an earlier stage inthe development of the rabbinic movement itself. Like the Qumran sect, thepredecessors of the rabbis - conventionally identified as the Pharisees -incorporated crucifixion into juridical theory if not practice. It survives inrabbinic jurisprudence in the attenuated form of "strangulation," and inthe "suspension" of the corpse that was to accompany some or all cases ofstoning.We can only guess at the rabbis' motives for rejecting crucifixion and

reinterpreting Deuteronomy 21:22-23. Humanitarian considerations mayhave been at work; or, possibly, a growing hatred of everything Roman.Nor can we be confident of the date of the change. If we may judge frommSanh. 7:2, the penalty of burning was modified during the lifetime of R.Eleazar b. Zadok; that is, in the second half of the first century A.D. (seeabove). The analogous modification of crucifixion into strangulation mayhave taken place at about the same time. If so, it is reasonable to connectboth reforms with the reorganization of the rabbinic movement at Yavnehin the wake of the debacle of 70 A.D. The changed attitude towardcrucifixion would then mark a major distinction between Pharisaism before70 and rabbinic Judaism after 70.

68 tSanh. 9:6, bSanh. 46b: 'ehad qoser we'ehad mattir kede leqayyem (bo) miswat teliyyah.Cf. above, n. 47.

60 bSanh. 46b: mashin 'oto 'ad samukh liseqi'at hahammah wegomerin 'et dino umemitin'oto wehahar kakh tolin 'oto.

7 Contrast the rabbinic demand for brevity with Josephus' assertion that the suspendedcorpse is to remain on view the entire day (Antiquities, IV, 202, 264), and with Philo's viewthat the victim must be "set on high and exhibited to the sun and heaven and air and water andearth" (Special Laws, III, 152; tr. F. H. Colson, Loeb Philo, VII, pp. 571-73).

71Yadin, "Pesher Nahum Reconsidered," p. 9.

46